. .

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: mr. president, let m me -- we've had a lot of talk, obviously, in the last -- well, going back now the las last more than -- well, you can go back 60 years we've been talking about health care. but in the last year, if you tried to calculate the number of times there have been meetings, conversations, not including the ones that occur here on the floor of the united states senate, but throughout the capitol, both the other body as well as here, between members and staffs, it has been voluminous, to put it mildly. and we've come down here now what appears to be the remaining just a few hours before we'll

decide, as a -- as a nation, as to whether or not to move forward or to basically leave things as they are with the hopes that one way or the other, things may correct themselves in terms of the cost of health care, the affordability to individuals, as well as the quality of health care for many. and so the next few hours, debates, days, rather, could largely determine whether or not once again the congress of the united states, democrats, republicans, as well as the administration, all of the others who've grap he would with this issue -- grappled with this issue now for many, many months, will succumb to what has afflicted every other congress and every other administration and every other group of people since the 1940's and that is our inability to come up and answer the question of whether or not we can do what almost every other major competitor nation of ours around the world concluded decades ago

and that is to provide decent, affordable health care for our fellow citizens. if nothing else, this debate has proven how complex this issue is and it's showcased the wide variety of view points that exist within not only this very chamber but people across the country. certainly that was evidenced this summer in the so-called august period of town hall meetings. i held five of them, madam president, in my state earlier this year, actually in the winter and spring before they became quite the celebrated events of august. i know most of my colleagues, one way or another, either did telehall, tele-town hall meetings or conducted ones in their home states. and because this issue affects one-sixth of our economy, 100% of our constituents, not only those here today but obviously for the millions yet to come, our debates have been sheertd and our disagreements -- spirited and our disagreements at times not only emotionally charged, not only in this

chamber here but across the country. and some of my democratic colleagues, madam president, still have concerns over aspects of the legislation -- and every one of us do -- and to any one of my republican colleagues who still desire to put people, as i know they do, ahead of partisanship, and to my fellow americans who worry that politics will once again triumph over progress, which it has on every single debate on this subject matter now for six decades, let me offer some context for the debate that once again begins this afternoon and is going to arrive at a closure in a matter of hours and days. and the answer ultimately will be whether or not we move forward and did which i think the majority, overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens want us to do, or fall back once again into the same -- and the same paralysis that affected congresses, administrations and generations before us. the consensus that we've already reached as the united states senate is that health care reform would represent a

significant victory for the american people. i think we all agree on that point. and it would be a significant moment in our nation's history. i think all of us can agree that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny you coverage because you have a preexisting condition, that these same companies shouldn't be able to ration the benefits that you and your family receive, and that you, as citizens of the united states, should be guaranteed that the coverage you pay for will be there for you when you need it. i think all of us in this chamber, regardless of party or ideology, agree that reform should make insurance more affordable, that it should protect medicare and keep it solvent so that it will be there for future generations, and that it should improve the quality of health care for all americans. focusing on preventive diseases, reducing medical errors, and eliminating waste from our system so that our health care dollars are used more effectively. i think, madam president, all of us can agree as well, regardless of which side of this -- this

divide here that exists in this chamber, that reform should empower families to make good decisions about purchasing insurance, empower small businesses to create jobs, and empower doctors to care for their patients instead of filling out legions of paperwork, and empower the sick to focus on their illnesses instead of fighting their insurance companies. these are the commonsense reforms, however, that will make insurance a buyer's market, keep americans healthier, and save families and the government an awful lot of money in the years ahead. and i think all of us share these views. at least that's what i've heard over the last year that i've been so intensely involved in this debate and formulating the policy that is now before us. if you listen to the distinguished minority leader, our good friend kentuck from ke, you might be surprised to learn that his conference has decided not just to oppose our legislation but, unfortunately,

to obstruct even further progress. after all, he called for a reform bill that incentivizes the workplace wellness, allows people purchase insurance across state lines, and reduce costs. our bill does all three things, madam president. let me be specific. on page 80 of this bill, our bill includes a bipartisan proposal allowing employers to offer large incentives for workplace wellness programs. on page 219 of our bill, madam president, it includes a republican proposal allowing health plans to be sold across state lines. and on page 1 of the congressional budget office analysis of this bill, the congressional budget office concludes that our bill would cut the deficit of our nation by $130 billion over the next 10 years, the single largest budget deficit reduction since 1997. in a body of 100, as we are, in

which both parties claim to agree on these principles, we be able to achieve, one -- we should be able to achieve, one would think, a bipartisan consensus on a matter of this import. but sadly, it would seem to our colleagues, too many of them, again on the other side of this divide don't seem to care what's in this bill specifically. i'm reminded -- i've reminded again, as others have, what is actually included in this bill. not that i would expect them or anyone on this side of this divide to agree with everything that's here. we don't. there's not a single member of this body who would not write this bill differently if he or she cool. there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever about that. but we serve in a collegial body of 100, where we have to come to consensus with each oh, even when we don't agree with every single aspect of this. and yet when i read the words of the chairman of the republican national committee -- and, again, speaking on behalf of a party -- this is why i find so disheartening, madam president. at a time like this of such import, i expect there to be a

full-throated debate and disagreement over various ideas, but read if you will the words of the national chairman of a major political party in this country. here's what he's suggesting his party ought to be doing at this critical hour. "i urge everyone," he says, "to spend every bit of capital and energy you have to stop this health care reform. the democrats have accused us of trying to delay, stall, slow down, and stop this bill. they are right," he says, end of quote. let's hear that again. "the democrats have achoosed us of trying to delay, stall, slow down, and stop this bill. they are right." madam president, it's awfully difficult to hear those talking about wanting to get a bill done here, wanting to come together when the chairman of their national party is recommending they do everything in their power to stop a bill that, in fact, includes manufacture the very reforms --

includes many of the very reforms that they themselves embrace. now, make no mistake, madam president, if the status quo prevails, i would like to tell you today that with absolute certainty the provisions we've included in bill are going to produce -- in this bill are going to produce the results that i've described. i can't say that. i don't know. i hope they do. i believe they will. i think we've done a lot of hard work that draws me to the conclusion we will achieve those results. but obviously only time will tell if those are the events or those are the results of our efforts. one thing i can say with absolute certainty, madam president, with absolute certainty, if we do what too many of our friends on the other side -- and clearly what the chairman of the republican national committee is recommending -- i can predict with absolute certainty the outcome and that is that premiums will go up dramatical dramatically, health costs will continue to wreak havoc on small businesses, our deficit will grow exponentially, americans will see premiums nearly double in the next seven years. a family of four is paying $12,000 a year today.

it is predicted with almost certainty that those premiums will jump to $24,000 within seven years if we do nothing. that much i can guarantee you. so for those who argue that the so-called status quo or staying things where they are and let's wait about another day to get this done, those are the results you can predict. more and more people will lose their health insurance, more families will be forced into bankruptcy, hundreds of thousands of americans are going to die, unnecessarily in my view, in the name that have obstruction. madam president, i don't think we can let that happen. and so it has fallen to the majority to do alone the job that we're all sent here to do collectively, the hard and honest work of legislating, as difficult as it is. the factors that have made us work so hard are not new or unique to this debate, and as history shows, they will not be what is remembered a generation from now. the words spoken here in this chamber, the charts, the graphs, awful these things are slowly forgotten by history. today we hold medicare up as an

example of a program worth defending. how many speeches have been given in the last two or three weeks about the glories of medicare? i only wish that those members who are here today had been present in 1965. we might have been able to pass that bill without the acrimonious, partisan debate that took place in those days. today we again remember -- no one talks about the 50 years it took to bring medicare to the floor of the united states senate. no one talks about the -- what the polls said in 1965 when it took a lengthy debate involving more than 500 amendments, by the way, to achieve consensus on medicare. and i might add, nobody attacks it as socialized medicine, as they did in 1965. it is always easier to envision, madam president, the legislation we want than to the pass the legislation we need. such is the case here this afternoon. we won't end up with a bill that i would have written if it were up to me and it won't the bill that any one of our colleagues

would have written either alone. i'll ask for two additional minutes, if i may. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. dodd: but it will be, madam president, a bill that improves the health care of all americans. it will be a bill that makes insurance more affordable, improves the quality of care and helps create jobs in our nation. it will be a bill that saves money and saves lives, and it will be a bill that decades from now, we will remember not for the differences we had in this chamber but for the differences it made in our nation and for the fellow -- our fellow citizens. to get there, we must build on the consensus we have already reached, not tear it down with the petty weapons of political gamesmanship. we must answer not the call of today's poll or tomorrow's election but the call of history that we've been asked to meet that. other generations, other congresses have failed to meet but we are on the brink of achieving. my hope is that all of us will come together in these closing hours and do that which many predict we could not do, again,

to pass legislation we need, not that we envision or the ones we might hope to create. with that, m age today at 1:00 p.m.

eastern on c-span3. m. "washington journal" continues. host: jim carr is chief operating officer for the national community reinvestment coalition here to talk about refinancing mortgages, particularly those who are under water in trouble with their mortgage. i wanted to point out a chart in sunday's "the new york times" about interest rates. low, low rates is their charred. -- chart. the peak in the mid navies -- mid-1980s and the 1990's, and now interest rates are at historic lows, going back to world war ii. why can't folks get refinancing with rates so low? guest: there are a number of reasons, bill. first and foremost, the number

of households under water, meaning the mortgages are currently worth more than the actual value of the homes is at a historic high. that is a major problem. in addition, the lenders have not really tightened up in terms of what they require for consumers to actually -- have really tightened up in terms of what the required. we've gone from reckless, irresponsible lending where consumers didn't have to provide any of -- information literally, just stay there and, uh, state assets and get these loans that were not sustainable, to a point of where now the lenders are really not in that position at all. they have gone actually way to the opposite end. you have to have a very high credit score, you have to document everything. particularly, for those consumers whose mortgages are upside down, the house has lost value pretty substantially, they are in trouble. host: let's take a look at those numbers. "the washington post" had an

article, foreclosure relief program is stuck in first. some of the figures, around 31,000 or 4% of the 720 about some people in the program, making home affordable, modified their loans, 30,000 have been disqualified. that number, 728,000, you are with the national community reinvestment coalition. is that a big number? guest: of that number needs to be many, many times higher. that the -- we are on route 4 record foreclosures this year alone. host: how does that compare to other years? guest: a normal year would be 300,000 400,000. recent years, and believable. last year, 3.3 million. we are talking a foreclosure crisis not only astronomical in terms of absolute numbers but it is still growing. when you dig under that number, 4 million, in fact you see we

could see even more foreclosures were it not for a number of the programs being put into place creating moratorium on foreclosures. if those moratorium were not in place, if those loans currently -- for example, you add it is -- mention the of ministrations home loan modification program, foreclosure mitigation, if those don't convert to a long-term or permanent loan modifications, sustainable, you can add those to the pile as well. host: we want to give our viewers involved. host: the house on friday passed a financial regulations bill. one of the and then is defeated was one by john conyers and others that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to write down or unjust mortgages. would that have been a good thing?

guest: bill, that is one of the most powerful tools that could actually move this foreclosure crisis forward in terms of modifying loans. essentiallyñi what it says is a home would be treated like any other major asset -- a luxury yacht, rental property. in the event you are struggling to pay your mortgage, you have access to a bankruptcy judge and that judges -- not talking consumer advocate, but that bankruptcy judge will be able to look at the consumer's perspective, from a consumer and lenders perspective, and strike a reasonable deal that would allow them to maintain their home and at the same time be something working in the interest of the investors as well. that was defeated. the problem was that of that lot alone would resolve -- could result as much as 30% of the crisis at no direct cost to the taxpayer. it is what the administration asked for at the beginning of the year when it put forward their making home affordable program. congress almost passed it. the house passed it, the senate

didn't. that was a real loser for the program because that was the compelling aspect. we do not have anything that could compel behavior by server serves. host: specifically what is the strongest thing that could compel server serves -- servicers guest: avenue there was a third party that could intervene and take a look of the consumer circumstances and not give everything to the consumer but on balance say, this make sense to the consumer and makes sense to the investor. if they knew the consumer had their records, and they would be much more efficient and effective evaluate a loans and either approving them or not approving them. what we have right now is complete the intransigence in the system. host: are beginning cases were providers say it is cheaper to let it go to a foreclosure rather than modifying? guest: not that it is cheaper.

it is just the servicersñi and collectible bunch of fees as it goes to foreclosure and ultimately the, during the process. there are lots of incentives, financial incentives, and there are reasonable ones but they can't compete with the enormous number and amount of fees a servicer and stacked up, and just sending the consumers through the tortures of foreclosure. that is why they need a compelling reason. this is an incentive, it makes sense. financial incentives are good but this is a compelling reason that says we need you to understand, we are in the middle of a national crisis. if i could say one other thing, there is some talk of recovery. but it is a jobless recovery. that jobless recovery is not a recovery in a sense of that it is unemployment, the largest driver of the foreclosure crisis -- not the products, they worked their way through. we have in all -- whole new set that will be coming next year. right now foreclosure is the largest driver.

as long as the problem that caused the crisis in the first place, foreclosure, continues to get larger and larger and taking on a life of its own now, then we won't really recover until we get people back to work and we will not been back to work until we resolve the crisis. it is very circular. host: walter, a republican, indiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate it. i came from old school. my mom and dad said the first thing you pay is yourself, take 10%. you don't need a new car, fancy clothes -- you need security. that sometimes means you have to go without for the longer purpose. host: i am going to let you go -- we do ask our viewers to give you 30 days before calling again. guecaller: i think he's said a lot of things -- the kind of

answer my question what you were on hold. so many people don't have jobs right now. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe it is not a requirement that you have to have a job to get some of these loan programs -- no job, you might not apply. just curious, you're called community reinvestment coalition there. you touched on irresponsibility of lending practices that led up to this. you go back to the community reinvestment in 1997 -- everything was loosened and banks were forced to loan irresponsibly and then the government stepped in and back everything with fannie and freddie. it was just a snowball that rolled downhill. we see where christopher dodd is in the polls -- he was in it right from the beginning, all the way through, getting a

sweetheart loans, no? you seem to have the same name but you don't seem to agree what went on. and now our government is continuing to borrow and cent -- said a poor example. almost thing they want to make businesses take loans they probably shouldn't be taking. where is the good example from the government? guest: you raise a lot of issues. let me walk through a few. one of the reasons that he -- we hear so much about the reckless loans, and most people now have come to understand that there was a lot of irresponsible lending. but they are aiming in the long direction. they are aiming at the community and the borrowers as opposed to the financial institutions that offer these data products. for example, you referred to the community reinvestment act. the federal reserve board actually did a study because they wanted to purge the misperception offered in the market -- only 6% of these

problematic loans, 6%, were excellent covered under the community reinvestment act to low and moderate income households. so almost 95% had nothing to do with that act. in fact, it had to do with wall street investment bankers and others not covered under cra. the second thing is about the government's writ irresponsible spending. i absolutely understand your concern about the deficit spending. we really -- we are in a mess. but here is the problem. the problem is, how do you get out of recession? the best way to actually pay down the debt is to have people employed and paid taxes. so the question is, how we get people back to work? even the most optimistic economists right now is expecting these high levels of unemployment to last for the next two, three, four, as many as six years. that is one of the reasons why the deficit spending, if it is actually creating jobs, would be the most powerful way to reduce the deficit.

but if it is spending for miscellaneous and furbelows activities that don't create jobs i am completely with you. we are -- ourselves a deeper and deeper hole. host: jason in rockfalls, and illinois. democratic column. go ahead, you are on. caller: is lending three or $4 on the dollar for the consumer or the person actually getting loans, isn't that the practice? why is a regulatory system behind the banking institutions lending two, three, $4 on the dollar, to keep more people on their homes? guest: i am not exactly sure what you mean by the question of letting $3 or $4 on a home to keep their home. one of the things i can say is

the programs to address of this financial crisis have been upside-down from the very beginning. what i mean by that is going back to last year, when we realize the banking system was having a problem and banks began to fail one at a time and ultimately a systemic failure, ultimately what the banks have more problem loans that will offer to consumers who were not able to pay them back. i could go into those problem loans did bill asks me to go into them. the short of it is we had a lot of problematic loans and the system. the way to help the banks would have actually been to in the subsidies at the consumers to allow them to maintain their homes. instead we aimed almost all the subsidies to the bank. we sent trillions -- most people focus on the $700 billion tarp as if that was the real bailout, the real was over $12 trillion, depending on whose estimate, as many as $23 trillion if you look

at the special inspector general for the bank bailout, came from the federal reserve, fdic through loans, investments, guarantees. here's the problem in bailing out the banks. the consumers are still failing on a homes. as much as we are giving to the banks, the consumers are still failing so they keep sending more and more problems to the banks and one of the reasons why, as the bailout has continued and a lot of people are celebrating the are now returning to profitability, lending exactly still falling because the banks are not helping. just one last thing. while we are celebrating a return and putting back into the banking system, we are on route to one of if not the largest number of banks failures in american history this year. fdic insurance fund is now depleted. so we are still in a crisis mode simply because we have not addressed fully the concerns and the challenges of those consumers who are going to

foreclosure. as long as we continue to have millions of foreclosures every year, we continue to have a real negative drag on the economy as well as sending more toxic products to the banks. host: what is the role of fannie mae and freddie mac and refinancing? guest: they are planning a major role in refinancing now. they are part of the administration's new refinance program and it started off working really well. /g#%7n::::::zzga:::zy)s::::+,$gz

deceptive products and mostly at households who really were not sophisticated about the market. so when they were told how the mortgages work, which is not accurate, in terms of how the housing market worked, we did not all of the sudden wake up one morning and find 3 million of 4 million people just reckless in america. something happened systemically. a lot of bad products were entering the system. most of the first products that failed tended to be for middle income and moderate income households who just won not that sophisticated in the market. -- were not as sophisticated and the market. a whole new wave of loans for people with higher credit scores. pay option arms. they don't begin to reset until the middle of next year and into 2011.

almost $200 billion worth of those loans. they will reset from minimum payment to fully amortizing loans such as the lone resets on those loans when they reset on average would be more than $1,000 a month. that is $12,000 a year. you can imagine there were lots of consumers particularly in this environment not prepared to step up to the plea to pay $1,000 more for month. that is the crisis still waiting to happen on price -- top of the crisis we have right now. host: then, republican, california. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i have a loan with washington mutual. chase came and take over from wamu, went through all the rigmarole, all led what is 30

affixed at lower interest. we have high scores on our credit. we have a lot of income. they refused may. and the appraisal was double what i old. what is my next recourse or what can i do to get out of the interest on late and get into 30 affixed with a lower interest rate? guest: from what you are saying, you are a perfect candidate for the administration's loan refinancing program. i don't have the details on your file so i can't tell you exactly why they would have turned you down. we hear stories like this all the time so it is not surprising people are getting a run around rather than refinancing as well as loan modification. here is what you can do. united states department of housing and urban development. if you will then, go to their home page and they will have on the home page very prominent, loan

modification and loan refinancing. xdthey will explain the making home affordable loan modification program and the refinancing program. just read through that. it is very consumer friendly. you can tell immediately if you are eligible and if you qualify. if so, it will give you instructions right there, including a telephone number as well as other web sites to go through directly to get help. just go straight to hud. host: taylor, atlanta collar on independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions. late last year they were discussing tax relik for those people who withdrew from their 41 k programs, retirement programs, to sustain their mortgages, or to those who have taken from their retirement

fundñr -- unemployment. is there any discussion of tax relief for those people as far as penalties for early withdrawal of 401k? guest: i have heard some discussions about that. i am one of the number of people who believe some types of exceptions, given this extraordinary crisis, particularly for emergency issues like dealing with a home, loss of a job or something like that. but i can honestly say i have not heard of any legislation that is excellent past or currently debated. but don't take that as a sign that it isn't being done. i know lots of people have been talking about that here in washington but it is an issue, those 401k plan and others, that i have not followed. host: the home market makes the front page.

cover story, can the home market bounce back without more help? host: tell us a little bit about the home market, not just the refinancing, but the whole market and help your looking for for new home buyers? guest: i smile that i hear the positive news is coming. it is more positive news built on a host of federal subsidies just working its way through the

system, coursing through the rain -- veins of the market, in a way that just does not speak to sustainability. for example, tax credit for new home purchases now being extended to purchases for homes for anybody, whether a first- time home buyer or you just want to buy a home in the market. there is nothing wrong with these programs. at least the militant types of programs are important for an economic recovery. -- these similitudes types of programs are important. but are you addressing the fundamental problems negatively affecting the assistance of assimilative putting you on the road to recovery or are you really put on a bridge that goes nowhere because at the end of the stimulus you still have the underlying problem. the problem in this particular case is you are attempting to use stimulus programs as a substitute for addressing the real fundamental problem. as long as the have 4 million to

go into foreclosure, saying you have a lot of housing sales going, you have to ask yourself, what is happening there? we are in the middle of recession. sport is to the stimulus affect -- part as tax credit and part is a lot of these homes are being sold at distress sales, 40%, 50%, 60% of the value. that is not a healthy market. host: san mateo, california. valerie, democratic caller. caller: i'm wondering why the banks don't split their mortgages -- 18 year loan for half of the mortgage now -- loan, and the remaining 12 years collect the other part. why do these consumers think they should just be off the hook for the loans they

borrowed? , and the banks carry a couple hundred thousand for 18 years? guest: your question suggests two issues. you said." something, i though, about why is that consumers think they should get all hot and then would the banks being willing to do some unusual or super normal things to modify the loan. the answer is it is an interesting thing. what is in the best interest of the banks and investors actually is in the best interests of the consumers. those two parties are different from the ones who actually service loans, will have a different financial incentive. this has been the disconnect all along. for example, when homes have gone to foreclosure, it is called loss severity in the industry. the lender or investor losing as much as 60% or more of the value of the home when it goes all the

way to foreclosure instead of having modified it and lost maybe 30%. in some cases, less than that and in some cases, maybe a little more. in most cases actually better than allowing it to go to foreclosure. most people have been scratching their heads over the better part of the year asking, why is it these loans are going to foreclosure, costing such an extraordinary amount and answer is you have a group of people who manage these loans, the servicers, and their incentives are different from investors and consumers and they don't have a compelling reason to participate because the law that would actually give them a reason to really be much more aggressive and assertive in modifying these loans has not passed congress. it is unfortunate because we are bailing out the financial industry and putting billions of dollars of now to help support consumers, but the law that could have one of the most powerful immediate effects would cost nothing to the consumers,

we just can't get it passed the bank lobbyist on capitol hill, which, by the way, being paid for a the same financial institutions that the american taxpayer paid out. the consumers stepped up to the plate, taxpayers, bailed out the banks and the banks to around and send an army of lobbyists to capital to work in the opposition of the best interest of the same people will bail them out. this crisis is going to be written about and textbooks and history books for years and nobody is going to believe how completely, almost awe, strange, some real has been this whole dealing with the crisis. host: the president is meeting with them of the white house. what the expected hear about mortgage market and refinancing? guest: we have seen a lot of previews. that is, he is going to pound the table and say they need to step up to the plate and do the right thing. the question isn't what it is he going to say to them, but what they are going to say to him. the fact of the matter is the largest banks that received the

greatest subsidies are showing great profits, on roads to get near record bonuses, and at the same time the lending, which was the whole purpose of bailing them out, had actually been dropping precipitously, like a rock, for month after month after month. what we need to hear from them is what are they going to do to actually contribute to the economy, which was the whole purpose and bailing them out. that is why i am saying a lot of people were saying, well, the bank bailout is a success. it is a success if we ended but foreclosure crisis from a success if we are lending again, putting the economy back to work. but it is not a success if the only thing we haven't is improve bank earnings for those institutions were bailed out -- if the only thing we have is improved bank earnings. that is not success. host: keith in palm bay, florida. caller: the started hitting on a

really good for a minute. the economy seems to be built on artificial basis and not the free-market -- the cars for clunkers, making people by early and everything and taking away the future sales. until we reset and are allowed to fail, we are going to be in big trouble. like me taking out another credit card to pay off another credit card. a new said earlier the government is creating jobs -- you said earlier the government is creating jobs but the borrowed money to do this but the average job is created at a cost of $200,000 to create a $50,000 job which that person does not even pay texas -- taxes so we are perpetually putting ourselves deeper in the hole. i think you are right that it is more of the buyer beware because kids are graduating from school and then of the culture of different countries but they don't know the difference between a fixed or adjustable mortgage.

i don't see buying adjustable mortgage even allowed and subprime. we use subprime to pay off our credit, we got it at a high interest and after five years of living in it, used it to pay off our credit and we used it in the right manner instead of spending it on vacations and stuff. i think it takes both sides to tango. it was the bank's fault to take advantage of the people and it was a lot of people's fault for using their house equity as a piggy bank. guest: just a quick comment. i think that was a really insightful point. and i think the extension, when you talk about public policy from what he said, was really good. for every one of these transactions -- a lot of people say it was all the banks fraught -- fall and some people say all the consumers fault. let us assume the reality for every bad loans there was a banker and a borrower. so the point is, if you are going to bail out one side or the other, why not bailout the

one who will bailout both sides or at least be evenly distributed in the way you address the crisis? we have not been evenly distributed. we act as if the banks were taken advantage of completely and the consumers, all the consumers were exploiting the banks and that has been a big problem. let me just say real quickly on the john ensign, the jobs created when you stimulate -- jobs side, the jobs created in the economy -- the problem is you can't stimulate the economy while ignoring the fundamental problems. you have to both do the stimulus things as well as address the fundamental problems and that is something we've not done a good job on. and be aware if the government creates jobs, like the cash for clunkers, or even if they put people directly to work in public-service jobs, those people would pay taxes and putting people to work is the best and fastest way to bring down the deficits that we are

having. iworking america does it work to bring down the deficit. so if you are really concerned about the economy, we should look at two things, fundamentally addressing the foreclosure crisis and fundamentally putting people back to work, not just short- term stimulus but when you are hearing in terms of the long term because his job crisis we have will last into 2010, into 2011. it does not mean we will have growing unemployment in 2011, but it means of the levels will be very high, at least 9% for the next couple of years, 8%, as much as 8% in 2013. most

thank you. and i want to welcome everyone to the summit and legal and legislative strategies to eliminate the achievement gap. as congress prepares to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act, it's my pleasure to welcome you all here for this important summit to learn how legal and legislative strategies can eliminate the achievement gap. i think everyone here will agree

that far too many of our youth are not reaching their full potential. and i think everyone here will also agree that we have a national interest in providing everyone with opportunities and resources that they need to thrive and become productive members of our society. the fact is that in order to maintain competition in today's global economy, america must have highly skilled and highly skilled and educated workforce. therefore, we need to invest in our children to ensure that they reach their full potential physically, emotionally, and academically by doing so we will invest not only in their future, but the future of our communities and nation, as well. one problem that needs to be addressed in our education system is the consistent and acknowledged pattern of undereducating lower income and minority students. we call it the achievement gap. this morning on national public radio, howard manning, a superior court judge in wakefield county, north

carolina, called it academic genocide. if persistent, pervasive, and significant disparity in educational achievement and attainment of groups of students negatively impacts not only educational outcomes of low income students but the future of their entire lives. and something that has to be wrong if this impact is inflicted with a consistent pattern based on income and ethnicity. we have legal precedence to address the issue. in 1954 in brown v. board of education, the court ruled that the ravages of segregation without more denied the children of the minority race of an equal educational opportunity. the subsequent cases involving disabled children found that failing to educate them to their full potential violated their constitutional rights. certainly under these standards, the very existence of an acknowledged achievement gap based on income and ethnicity must also violate the rights of the income and ethnic groups who

suffer. today we'll hear from three panels of experts. our first panel, legal and civil rights experts will look at the technical legal precedences of brown v. board of education, the state of pennsylvania and board of education of the district of columbia, both requiring free and appropriate education of children with disabilities. they will discuss from the various perspectives whether and how these precedents can be applied to a consistent and acknowledged pattern of undereducating lower income and minority students. they will discuss whether or not the victims of the achievement gap have been denied an equal education opportunity in vie violation of the constitution. by socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic status to establish that there is, indeed, an achievement gap and discuss the short and long-term disadvantages inflicted on low income and minority students who are

victims of the achievement gap. and finally, the third panel will discuss whether it is, in fact, possible to eliminate the achievement gap and how we can determine when the achievement gap has been eliminated. this panel will then outline the best cost effective alternatives that are -- that are -- that -- the alternatives to the present governmental policies that will result in the elimination or at least significant reduction of the achievement gap. finally the panel will discuss the type of legislation we need to pass to shape the country in which all students receive a quality education that is no longer an achievement gap based on ethnic -- ethnicity, race, or economic status. so i'm going to give very brief introductions to our panelists. if i gave them their full introductions, i would be introducing people for about 45 minutes to an hour. i would like to get to the full

biographies in your package. let me briefly introduce nancy lee jones, the legislative attorney with the american law division. of the congressional research service. she provides legal advice to members of congress, committees and staff are preparing impartial, scholarly, written analysis, various legal issues. and by oral briefings and seminars. some of the areas that she covers concerns civil rights of individuals with disabilities. and next will be katie nees who manages the federal and state public policy activities, especially those policies that help children and adults with disabilities to live, learn, work, and play in their community. she was on the legislative staff of tom harkin on disability policies between 1987 and 1991 where she worked on disability legislation including the

american with disabilities act and the disability education act. kathleen rondy is the co-founder for the center of education. representing students from low-income families whose primary mission it is to ensure high quality education of all students, including those with disabilities. p professor john c. britton returned as a professor of law at the university of the district of columbia. prior to that, he served as chief counsel and senior deputy director of the lawyers committee for civil rights under law in washington, d.c. he's a former law school dean, la professor and public interest civil rights lawyer with a career of over 40 years. veronica rivera is a legislative staff attorney with the mexican-american legal defense and education fund where she focuses on education policy. a former schoolteacher and worked in the state of texas, office of the governor of

critical justice division. robert -- bob carr, the international bar association, the oldest and largest national association of attorneys. earlier in his career he practiced law with an atlanta-based firm and served in government and staff positions in the united states house of representatives. and u.s. department of labor. cynthia robins currently serves as a consultant. and along with edward kohn is co-founder, director of racial justice initiatives. initiative was launched earlier this year to address the consequences of structural racism and social injury resulting from violations of the constitution and federal law and public systems, including juvenile justice, child welfare, and public education. she has experienced as a civil rights lawyer and criminal defense attorney as an adjunct professor of juvenile law. and we will be joined, hopefully, during the program by

tonya clay house who is the director of the newly established policy department of the lawyers committee on civil rights and the law. she is a former policy -- public policy director of the people for the american way, and former legislative council for sheila jackson lee and senator barbara boxer. so we'll begin with nancy jones. >> thank you, mr. scott. i'm nancy jones. i'm an attorney with the american law division of crf. and crf does provide objective and non-partisan information to the congress. i'm going to be speaking today about the legal and historic background of the individuals with disabilities with education act, i.d.e.a. a grant statute, provides federal funds to states for the education of children with disabilities. in order to receive these funds, states must ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education.

assure that children with the rights of disabilities and their parents are protected. more specifically, the law also contains provisions for an individualized program and has detailed due process procedures. as a the supreme court said in smith versus robinson in 1984, i.d.e.a. set up by congress to aid the state to provide the constitutional education to provide public education for children with disabilities. although congress had made some provision for the education of children with disabilities in the elementary and secondary education act as early as 1966, the real roots of idea are in the 1975 law, pl 94142, for all handicap children act. and so you don't get confused, the name of this law was changed during a later reauthorization

to the individuals with disabilities of education act. but let's go back to the original law. there are several reasons why congress decided to pass 94142, the main ones were an increased awareness of the educational needs of children disabilities and the long-term benefits of providing these children with an education. in addition, several lower court judicial decisions established a right to education for children with disabilities. and states argued that their lack of financial resources prevented the implementation of these decisions. financial problems are not new. statistics from the then department of health, education, and welfare indicated that of the more than 8 million children with disabilities in 1975, only 3.9 million were receiving an appropriate education. 1.75 million children with disabilities were receiving no educational services.

and 2.5 million children with disabilities are receiving an inappropriate education. the type of education that was deemed inappropriate was often not a minor difference. judy human in testimony noted her experiences with education in the 1950s and '60s. ms. human had polio in 1949 when she was 18 months old until she was 9, the new york school system furnished 2 1/2 hours of schooling a week in her home. when she was 9, she got to go to a real school when she and other children with disabilities were placed in a special health conservation class in the far corner of the basement away from children who did not have disabilities. they were taught fewer hours and a different curriculum than children without disabilities. ms. human stated the message was very clear, you are not welcome. we have very few expectations for you to achieve as an adult. she succeeded despite this and went on to a successful career,

including time as assistant secretary special education rehabilitation services at the department of education. but for many children subjected to an inadequate education, the long range implications were a life of dependency, often in an institution. the senate report on pl 94142 indicated that providing educational services will ensure against persons being needlessly forced into@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @å 7 park was a class action by children with intellectual

disabilities who sued the state alleging that they were denied a right to a public education. and although the court did not address the constitutional issues, the court noted it was satisfied that the plaintiffed established a claim. after park, another similar case, mills versus board of education of the district of columbia was brought on behalf of seven school-age children who had been excluded from the d.c. public schools. they had no alternative placement and no due process hearings before they were excluded. and the court in mills noted the d.c. statutes and their regulations and the language from brown versus board of education. one of the most important functions of state and localities. and that's such an educational opportunity where the state has undertaken to provide it is a right which must be made available on equal terms. the mills court emphasized this language holding denial of education to these two children with disabilities violated d.c. statutes and regulations as well

as constitutional due process. so congress responded to the increased awareness of the educational needs of children with disabilities. the long-term benefits of providing these children with an education, and these judicial decisions establishing a right to education for children with disabilities with the enactment of cl 94142 in 1995. since 1975, i.d.e.a. has been the subject of thousands of judicial decisions, many of which do address the concept of a free appropriate public education. i.d.e.a. remains the corner stone of the right with people with disabilities. it should also be emphasized that the judicial decision, especially those regarding free appropriate public education vary widely. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. scott. my remarks today are going to address whether low-income and minority children with disabilities have been deprived of an equal educational

opportunity. and i believe the answer is a simple yes. i want to give a little additional background from what nancy said. currently more than 6 million students with disabilities who receive supports from i.d.e.a., half of them are white, 20% are black, and 20% are hispanic. however, we do know that 24% of students with disabilities live in poverty compared to 16% of the general education population. in order to be eligible for education services, a student must have both a disability and special education. they do not have a disability that prohibits them from achieving grade level academic standards. at this time there are about 16 categories of disabilities within i.d.e.a. one of the things that's critical to look at is the

ultimate outcomes of our secondary education system and that's a high school diploma. for black and hispanic students, 32% drop out compared to 20% of their white peers. 42% of black students and 44% of hispanic students graduate with a standard diploma compared to 64% of their white peers. and 23% for black students, 21% graduate with a certificate of attendance. we really want to see those numbers of graduating with a standard diploma get significantly higher than what they are now. as nancy said, prior to i.d.e.a. in 1975, some states had laws that specifically prohibited students with disabilities from attending schools. where i live in montgomery county, maryland, it was illegal to go, if you had an intellectual disability, it was illegal for you to go to high school. and in 1975, i.d.e.a. was

enacted in large part because children with disabilities, predominantly those with intellectual disabilities believed that their child with a disability was like all of their other children and had value like all of their other children and deserved a right to go to school. i.d.e.a. is grounded, i believe, in the 14th amendment equal protection clause. and so because every state's constitution establishes a public education system, the theory is if the state educates one child, it needs to educate every child. i.d.e.a. sets out the procedures by which each child's education is supposed to be tailored to his or her individualized needs. the law also establishes a state grant program. and initially it was thought that congress was to provide 40% of the excess cost associated with educating students with disabilities. over time i.d.e.a. has been revised. a couple things are important to

this. first is that in 1997, congress added the requirement that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum. prior to that time, it was that students really had -- the right to be in school and congress clarified in 1997 and they have a right to be educated to have access to the same curriculum as their non-disabled peers. second, that congress required students to be included in state and district-wide assessments with appropriate accommodations when necessary. those -- so our national policy was that students should do something more than simply attend school. they should be expected to make academic progress that is similar to their non-disabled peers. so why do we have the outcomes that we have? i think there are four clear reasons. one, despite these very -- the specific requirements and clear laws, the burden of securing educational opportunities for children with disabilities falls on their parents.

low-income families are often balancing a series of challenges and do not have the capacity to become expert on the specific educational and related services supports that their child needs. second, in some cultures, parents are not comfortable challenging the authority of the school system. and even when they know -- even when they know the set of supports that's being provided to their child is inadequate. third, not all children have had access to the general curriculum. and students with disabilities will continue to be what we call victims of the tyranny of low expectations until we can demonstrate they have access to the general curriculum. and then finally, some in the public education system have viewed the level -- or the lack thereof of federal funds as a reason or an excuse for shortchanging students with disabilities. so i'm glad to be here, and thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, i'm kathleen, attorney and co-director for the center of education. what is the real requirement for education standards? i'm going to suggest there are ways to analogize from these rights and strategies to all students. today there's no doubt that students with disabilities have clearly established rights to be educated to high standards based on equal protection, due process, clause of the 14th amendment, the education act, section 504 rehabilitation act, the civil rights statute that bars discrimination on the basis of disability. moreover, those including from low-income families, racial and ethnic minorities as well as students from the same groups who do not have disabilities that impede learning but are struggling to learn higher standards also have a right to quality education under key

provisions of title one in the elementary and secondary education act. however, as i'm going to briefly describe, key changes are necessary to help close the significant achievement gap for both students with disabilities and students of color without disabilities. starting with implementation and enforcement of federal law. remedies for ensuring that all students receive the high quality education in which they're entitled. for example, despite students with disabilities having strong rights, implementation and enforcement of i.d.e.a. remains uneven, whether as a result of emphasis on compliance or for performance, or an inability of parents, especially low income parents who are disproportionately parents of children, those most vulnerable, to exercise their complain under i.d.e.a., to bear the burden of proof to challenge the quality of programs with access to expert witnesses or the ability to retain counsel as a result of the supreme court's decision.

moreover, targeted oversight and enforcement of rights to high quality education of title one for all students including low income, english language learners without disabilities are highly acknowledged never mind enforced and difficult to access for parents as well as advocates. okay. you've heard how i.d.e.a. incorporated the principles in establishing the program in the spending clause and the 14th amendment. contains a directive to state and local education agencies to provide all eligible children with disabilities to the full education. which is defined by statute as consistent with the state education agency standards set for all children. okay. based on this definition, the content -- the goals and content of a child's special education or instruction cannot be designed in a vacuum, but rather in reference to meaning and content to all students in the state school district in the

school. regulations promulgated under i.d.e.a., special education, especially designed in instruction with regard to the curriculum so the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the agency that applied to all students. whether reflecting increased knowledge, understanding how students of diversity need, or perhaps a commitment to principles of equal protection. amendments to i.d.e.a. in 2007 and 2004 and specifically to title one, the education act of 1994, as well as in 2001, which apply to all students raised expectations for improved educational achievement for students with disabilities. the '97 amendment idea expressed disabilities to have access to the curriculum. each student's iep, individualized program must describe how the disability

affects participation and the progress in the general curriculum, include specialized instructions, supports for teachers to enforce and to enable a student to learn and make progress in the general curriculum and to be reviewed periodically and be advised as necessary to enable the child to learn the general curriculum established for all. other changes to i.d.e.a., issues of concern, racial minorities, english language learners disproportionately established being in need of special education. for example, changes in '97 and 2004, specialized instruction for children from 3 to 9 without have to classify them with a specific disability. instead using the term developmental delay. changes also allow school districts to use up to 15% of the i.d.e.a. funds to focus on children who not yet -- who are experiencing difficulty and struggling learners, struggling

to learn but have not been identified as having a learning disability. the 2006 regulations also encourage response intervention methods of the way for students suspected of having learning disabilities properly implemented rti may also be a critical tool for ensuring the struggling general education students receive more special instruction and the minority students are not misclassified as needing special education services. okay. finally i want to talk about title one, reauthorization of i.d.e.a. 2004 aligned i.d.e.a. with no child left behind making sure the students of disabilities of the subgroup are accounted for in the accountability system. the nclb is clear, requiring adoption and use of the same standards for all students without exception. what's important is that since 1994, title one has actually required schools to provide students with accelerated and enriched curriculum, aligned and challenging state standards. established for all students, not a slower watered down

curriculum. teachers must be highly qualified, use special instruction strategies. regularly get intensive services on how to provide this kind of enrichment. struggling students must be provided with timely interventions whenever having difficulty mastering any of the standards and intervene with kindly effective help. yet despite these requirements, mandating provisions of high quality education for all students. the law as being implemented only focuses on underperforming schools based on test performance. the sole focus of title one reauthorizing amendments has been on accountability for result test scores. with public attention fixed on this goal, little or no consideration has been given to the quality components, which clearly can impact and affect the achievement gap. okay. these key provisions of title one properly implemented should enable all students including minority students, students with disabilities will overcome barriers to learning. however, not only are these

provisions virtually invisible under the radar, but unlike i.d.e.a. where parents have a right to bring that complaint under any matter concerning identification, evaluation programming, or placement. there is no cause of action under title one todb disparities exist, focusing on the policies and practices and looking to see whether or not that policy and practice can, in

fact, educationally necessary and can be justified. thanks. >> thank you. >> mr. britton? >> thank you very much, congressman. i interpreted -- i interpreted your question today to ask whether you -- i thought there was any legal theory the two challenge of the achievement gap on behalf of those who are underperforming in school. as you've already heard, there have been approximately three jurisdictional grounds seeking educational educate. they are in short the constitutional equal protection ground that was the bedrock of board versus education.

and certainly, some of those remedies that flowed out of that could relate to the modern day achievement gap, but not directly. and i will not repeat some of the analysis of previous colleagues here on the day in terms of the use of the a.d.e.a. and also possibly the equal educational opportunity act came up more recently in the supreme court case of arizona. and then thirdly, there have been state constitutional right to an education, that indirectly, at least, touch upon the issue of the achievement gap. i would like to focus my remarks on one in particular. and in addition to the three precedents that you stated in the question for the first

panel, namely the district of columbia federal suit, the pennsylvania federal suit, and brown versus board of education. what i would like to add another reference. and that is an article about my colleague. jim leeman from columbia law school and his colleague charles sable entitled, federal no child left behind act and the post-desegregation civil rights agenda. and that is cited at 81 north carolina law review 1703. within the framework of the legal theory that might address the achievement gap, the constitution itself, especially school integration today probably wouldn't cover it. under very strenuous tests about

intent. and other restrictions on remedies especially after the parents involved, a case involving louisville and seattle in 2007. the state school equal financing cases that have been brought indirectly addresses it such as the abbott versus bert case in new jersey and the horton case in connecticut. yet we found that equal financing doesn't really address the structural inequality based upon high poverty concentration and low achievement. and there's a new wave of cases in the past 18 years known as the adequacy in education cases. and the lead one in that category is certainly the campaign for fiscal equity from new york city. but again, can at least indirectly touch upon resources and educational programs. however, i interpret your question asked, could we really

bring a successful suit based upon the disparities? the disparities between minority and non-minority, and between poor and non-poor. which is the core of the achievement gap. and which goes to the no child left behind act. my colleagues, lehman and all argue that the new accountability standards established under the no child left behind act now provides the law and civil rights litigators with the measurable standards. exactly what is a quality education? which courts have refrained from doing because they say courts are not in the business of education? as well as a measure to determine what was the violation from a non-violation? i will conclude my remarks by saying, congressman scott, that you could help address the question of the achievement gap in the upcoming reorganization

of the esea by creating a private right of action in the no child left behind act. without a private right of action, there's no real way that parents and civil rights advocates could challenge this disparity that's measured under the act. certainly i see assistant secretary of education for the office of civil rights there, and certainly her office and the department of education have some standing in that. but i conclude by saying that if you want the civil rights advocates to help address this question of the achievement gap of looking for a cause of action that's viable in court and looking for a possible remedy, i would say we have a great start now in the no child left behind act in terms of the new accountability. but we need that key to unlock the door to go to court.

and that key would be some kind of private right of action. and as the previous speaker said, if it's not too much more to ask, we would also look to a possible amendment of title 6 to create an impact standard. it is that disparity itself which should be the of the violation. and it would have to rely on the impact test that takes the disparity, makes it a violation, if it's not a violation in substance, at least shifts the burden over to the respondent, the l.e.a., the legal education authorities to show that there are no other better means to provide an adequate and less discriminatory education. >> thank you. >> thank you, congressman scott. my remarks will concentrate on

cases that have affected students prior to brown versus board of education and the ruling. the educational experience has long been marked by persistent segregation and racial isolation. the legal struggle against the segregation of latino students began more than half a century ago. prior to brown versus board of education, there was another case that was pivotal in the desegregation round. the case was mendez versus westminster, which desegregated schools in california and closed down mexican schools. mendez was the first federal law successfully challenged latino students segregation. and it was an important precedent for the brown decision. in mendez, the court held that separate but equal schools were inadequate and that a paramount requisite in the american system of public education is social equality. it must be open to all children by unified school association regardless of lineage.

brown versus board of education held in 1954 that in the field of public education, the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. however, this specific recognition that brown's doctrine apply to latino school segregation did not reach the federal court until almost three days after the mendez and brown decision. independent school districts in 1970 and keys versus school district number one in 1973. the rulings in both cases finally recognized that latinos are protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. unfortunately, even after those rulings, latino student civil rights have not sufficiently been enforced by federal civil rights agencies. and latino students generally continue to attend low performing racially isolated

schools. legal challenges to school segregation have been limited by federal courts since the 1970s. latino students were directly affected both by the san antonio independent school district versus rodriguez decision in 1973, which held that there is no federal right to equal resources for students in impoverish public school districts and the milligan versus bradley decision in 1974 where the supreme court created a barrier between city and suburban schools for desegregation purposes. since 90% of latinos attend schools in metropolitan areas, these decisions limited legal avenues for latino desegregation. integration of latino students with white students has been declining on a national level ever since the data was first -- were first collected in 1968.

during the 1980s, the level of segregation surpassed that of african-american students and it remains that way today. by the 2005-2006 school year, about two of every five latino students across the country attended an intensely racially segregated school. moreover, latino english language learner students attend schools where over 60% of the students are latino. all of these statistics are especially troubling in light of the fact that latino student public school enrollment has quadrupled in size from 5% in 1968 to 20% since 2005. on june 28th, 2007, the united states supreme court issued an opinion and parents involved in community schools versus seattle school district number one and meredith versus jefferson county board of education.

at issue in these cases was the authority of local school districts to consider the race of individual students in taking voluntary actions to reduce racial and ethnic segregation and isolation in k-12 public schools. as mentioned, latino students write to desegregated schools was recognized in 1973. but the supreme court's ruling in the 2007 case limits voluntary desegregation plans and could increase the already high levels of segregation of latino students. in a 5-4 vote, chief justice john roberts acknowledges writing for himself and three other justices acknowledge that remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination is a compelling interest. robert, however, held that the compelling interest of remedying the effects of past intentional segregation was not applicable to the school district plans in this case. because the school systems were

not under court ordered desegregation plans. when they carried out their integration plans. the supreme court ruling altered the constitutional law governoring voluntary desegregation but it is important to note that the ruling does not apply to and has no effect on the school desegregation plans. for many latinos the promise of an effective quality public education remains elusive. despite mendez and brown, latino students have never experienced an overall decline in racial isolation. in fact, they increasingly language in segregated settings would drastically limited opportunities for latino school student decrease in isolation holds the promise of improved academic opportunities and attainment as well as greater

and political civic and political engagement. all significant and important goals as the latino community grows into its role as the largest minority group in the nation's diverse landscaper, latino children require access to the nation's best schools at a time when residential racial isolation is increasing and the importance of strong college preparation is becoming ever more essentials to economic success in the united states. latino students must be allowed to learn from the experience is gathered in endeavors classroom setting just as members of other ethnic groups must learn about latinos. at a time when there are too q opportunities for youth to prepare for success in a multiracial society our communities must preserve options for the voluntary integration of our public schools.

thank you. >> thank you. mr. karl? >> good afternoon. on behalf of the national bar association we are b%&dá#2@ rr" are discussing that issue.

it seems to me that the problem stems from language that was inserted in that decision at the very end in terms of the remedy, with all deliberate speed. those four words continue to plague us from the big inning and continue to plague us, with all deliberate speed. i would assert today that we have still not achieved the mandates of brown versus board of education. let me talk about my own life. i grew up under the segregated south. although i may not look it i was born in 1950, four years before that decision. i know painfully well of what it is like to grow up in a segregated environment. i know what it's like. i grew up in the south, tallahassee, florida. it was not until 1964, 10 years

after the decision, that we began to address the question of segregation in my own state of florida. and so, here we are again, 55 years later, still wrestling with this issue. the fact that we have the achievement gap, it seems to me, is per se evidence of the fact that we have not achieved the promise of brown, nor have we complied with the mandates of the brown versus board of education decision. the national bar association has long been in the forefront of the civil-rights movement. charles hamilton houston, thurgood marshall, among our early pioneers in this era. and yet, 55 years after their historic work, we continue to struggle with the issue of an

achievement gap. so we must applaud congressman scott for addressing this issue. because all children regardless of ethnicity, regardless of race, regardless of ability, are entitled first and foremost to equal respect, to equal opportunity, to equal treatment, to equal status, and to equal place. and as long as we have an achievement gap that simply will not and cannot happen. we must address that issue. it is a moral right, it's a civil right, it's a parental right, it's an ethical right. today, as many of my distinguished colleagues on the panel have illustrated, it's a

legal right. it must be addressed. thank you very much for allowing us to be here, but we believe we and where we start. the very existence of an achievement gap demonstrate that low-income and minority children have been deprived of equal educational opportunities and violation of the u.s. constitution. our answer is undeniably yes. thank you very much. >> thank you. before we get to cynthia robbins, i want to recognize donna christiansen, representing member of congress from the virgin islands and mike honda, who is a member of the congressional asian-pacific american caucus from california. thank you.

cynthia? >> thank you, congressman scott. for including me among the panel of preliminaries participating in this summit to tackle the seemingly intractable achievement gap. my name isn't the robins and as a lawyer and activists committed to justice and education along with distinguished professor of law, i have been honored to co-founded the racial justice initiative. if you remember nothing else of what i have to say today, please remember that i came here to say, yes we can. that slogan embraced by the campaign of now president and nobel laureate barack obama coined by you f.w. founder cesar chavez, captures the essence of the american legacy of opportunity and progress. and the guides us as we tackle the achievement gap and other manifestations of structural racism. there are a myriad of examples

across this country of educators, students, families, saying yes we can level the playing field. one poignant example shows the time bank movement core values of reciprocity and co-production at work. reciprocity by offering our gifts and talents and receiving the fruits of our neighbors labor we produce the type of community we want and need. in the example i am sharing ordinary fifth and sixth graders in 25 failing elementary schools in chicago public schools tutored first and second graders and achieved remarkable success. at its heart is the fact that no one of the best ways to cement understanding is to try to explain that lesson to someone else. here, failings this and sixth graders became dedicated tutors and role models. everybody learned, everybody won, and every child became the smart kid. test scores and educational achievement improved for the

tudors and tuttis driving many of the schools of the failing schools list altogether. this account is documented in dr. pons but no more throwaway people which i would like to have introduced to the record. we know it works and i am here to talk about how to compel public education officials to use that knowledge. for decades ever since the supreme court decided washington versus davis in 1976 challengers of structural braces of seeking relief under section 1983, civil-rights litigation, had faced the onerous burden of proving that responsible government and authorities intended the injury and discrimination that resulted from their policies and practices. it's hard enough to know what i intend and difficult to assert what another person in tents, but it's virtually impossible to prove the intent underlying a particularly policy or practice

of governmental entities such as a public school system for juvenile correctional authorities. in the next issue of the law journal you will see an article that i recently co-authored with dr. connors, which i know you have read and analyzed and offer they can't refuse, racial disparity in juvenile justice and deliver indifference meat alternatives that were. we had sent copies over. i am not certain whether they made it into the package. i do have a copy for inclusion of the record as well. our articles sets forth a new strategy to compel government officials to do the right thing, to use the knowledge about what works instead of relying on billing policies and wasted resources. our strategy to overcome this onerous burden of proving that government intended the injury relies on a opening in the supreme court case law that comes from the leader case from

1989. that case says that we can infer intent on the part of the government authorities if they have been shown to show a discriminatory practice from among alternatives. it coins the term deliberate indifference in describing the government officials choice to pursue this course of action in the face of other alternatives. moreover, i have been asked to briefly discuss its application to our theory in the context of persistent disparity in educational attainment by students of color. ironically the determination of about how many prison cells to construct is reliant on a determination of third grade reading levels. so, in the education context our

strategy would look something like this. instead of looking backwards as litigators' traditionally do, we say look forward, have a public notice form, pull together the educational officials and bring the evidence and people who can offer evidence about both the disparity as well as detailed educational practices as well as opportunities and alternatives that have been successful, like the fifth and sixth graders who could testify about their experience in chicago. it's our activists and optimistic hope that juxtaposing these policies against alternatives that work would persuade officials to do the right thing. but in the absence of them being persuaded we would say take the transcript from the public notice forum and use it as exhibit a. macke in a piece of civil rights litigation to challenge the achievement gap.

in closing, i would just say that we know it works. i have seen it as the director of an alternative school here in washington, d.c. that was initially found it by now attorney-general eric holder. i saw that setting high expectations tries education turnaround by hard work, instructional strategy that respects and embraces different learning styles. students work to. they participated in counseling, parts, 80 class's. young people whom everyone had written off had gone off to college at a rate exceeding 80% in many years. last week and the reported from a study from carnegie-mellon university that featured an effort to improve elementary reading it demonstrated a breakthrough in understanding of all brain function. they look at the brains of young

people who were not achieving and lacking in their reading and those who were compared to a controlled group. after 100 hours of remediation and intensive intervention they focused on things like phonics and syntax and other reading fundamentals. a follow-up brain scan showed that this intensive reading intervention changed the brains of the lagging learners and more importantly the lagging readers had caught up. yes, we can bridge the achievement gap. i will defer on the issue of special education and i join with a request for the establishment of a private right of action and the amendment of title 6. we have the knowledge, the resources and the reauthorization of the statute to provide the opportunity to invoke a new strategy to compel officials to use what we know in order to educate all of our children and prepare them to excel in the 21st century

information age. yes, we can. >> thank you very much. we have been joined by tanya clubhouse. tanya? >> thank you, congressman, and thank you for allowing me to participate in this berry wonderful panel this afternoon. i wish i was able to stay the entire time. i am in the middle of an all staff briefing where i have special permission to leave for my executive director for this because this is extremely important. thank you for allowing me to be here. i am here representing the lawyers committee for civil rights under law and our mission essentially is to bridge -- to protect the civil rights of all americans, particularly racial minorities and to protect against racial disparities that may exist amongst minorities particularly african americans. what i will say today may seem a

little bit of a naysayer, but i want to express some reality that we are facing as we deal with some of the issues confronting us within and education context or within litigation. before i get to that, let me just say that professor britain, my predecessor, has stolen my thunder, which is okay because he came before me and did all of this before and. that's okay. i am quite thankful he mentioned one of the remedies that we would strongly advocate for would be an addition of a private right of action as well as amendments to title 6. because we don't have that's i am here today to say that we have a challenge and this is why as i was talking amongst my colleagues -- again, we have a variety of projects within the

lawyers committee. i am the policy director kind of representing all of them. we are trying to rack our brains to think does it exist? well, the problem is that because@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r

unfortunately, because of the supreme court case we are in a situation where they had to revamp that. indeed, right now they have developed some remedies and which they are utilizing magnet programs, which we do find it somewhat successful. unfortunately, they are being challenged, not the magnet programs, but there are challenges that are taking place now because there's a claim by

some of those non-white students were not african american that they are being discriminated against because they are not being afforded the same opportunities as african americans based upon the current scheme that is in place right now in jefferson county. that being said, we will say that there is some success that we can glean from what is occurring because there is positive momentum. there's a voluntary action within jefferson county in order to remedy the segregation that is still currently exists within that county. additionally, let me mention within north carolina we have also recently come to a settlement agreements to at least a mediation within north carolina. it's a case called everett purses pick county board of education, which is something in which the parent association has

been allowed to at least participate in mediation with the county with regard to the reassignment plan that has taken place. we are able to avoid a unitary status, a declaration within that, but we have been told we will have to look at that in another few years. that is something we are still have provided some opportunity for there to be engagement within the community in order to achieve some type of remedy because of the segregation that is still occurring within that county. those are a couple of alternative remedies that we can deal with right now as we are trying to achieve and at least have some type of affirmative right within the constitution. of course, we know about things such as smaller classes, professional development that to also work. again, until we have that affirmative right within the federal constitution there's not a lot we can do as litigators,

but we are attempting to do as much as we can up to that point. i want to say on behalf of the lawyers committee we will be extremely ecstatic and happy to work with anyone in order to come to some type of feasible argument for a theory that we can bring into the court system. as of right now, i cannot come here to say to you that that actually exist. that's being said, i do look forward to hearing as much as i can't until i have to leave about what opportunities exist. i thank you again for allowing me to be here today. >> thank you for much. please give our panelists a round of applause. that was excellent presentations. [ applause ] we have a few minutes before the next panel starts for questions. i will ask one to professor britain and tonya clay. about the private right of

action. i know it would be more convenient if it were specifically articulated, but the plaintiffs in brown didn't have a private white of action party special ed students did not have a private right of action. if ms. robins period where you have a racially identified the achievement gap inflicting damage on a clearly ethnically identified group it would constitute a constitutional violation. if there's a violation, how can you have a violation without a remedy? >> as i understand your question, congressman scott, you asked why do you need a private right of action to bring a constitutional claim? the answer is you don't. the question though, is that if you are going to try to force a civil rights based upon a federal statute that seems to

guarantee some equality, this decision by the supreme court called sandbar has said that you have to have a congressional declaration that the beneficiaries of this act are entitled to enforce the provisions in accordance. otherwise, only basically the federal government agency in charge of enforcing the act can do it. so, that, congressman scott, is why we need a private right of action if we are to base a challenge to the achievement gap based upon some kind of statutory framework for educational equality. >> what about the brown the standard of equal opportunity from a constitutional perspective, not a statutory perspective? >> excellent question. if we were to look at the achievement gap is overwhelmingly non-white,

therefore it involves segments of our public schools that are almost completely segregated. yet our hands are tied to day in challenging the very segregation that was challenged in brown because brown was based upon an intent to segregate the students. yet today there is no segregation. the last little piece of that was omaha, neb. for a moment, the decision to create segregation. there is only 2 factors segregation only in new jersey, only in connecticut where i have been involved with the o'neill case at the courts under a state constitution recognizing de facto segregation is actionable. so, that is why we can't really challenge the racial segregation that creates the achievement gap under a federal equal protection standard because it was not deliberately created.

>> i think what ms. robbins has suggested is if you give them notice of alternatives that are not racially discriminatory and alternative ways of doing education in a racially identifiable achievement gap, then that would show intent. >> that's why i referred to my colleagues article that we just can't bring shall we say in education malpractice case dealing with the achievement gap the way that it can bring medical or legal malpractice cases because the courts say we don't know what is a standard of minimum education. and we don't know how you measure it. in short, i would say that the no child left behind today and all the formulation that goes into it particularly by state as to what is its minimum standard of education to meet the annual yearly progress, which do have a standard and the achievement gap is the measure of that today to

hopefully lead to a legal claim that would constitute a violation of a child at equal right to education. >> thank you. do you have questions? >> i didn't have one, but i will have one now. i am not an attorney. i am a schoolteacher. the question i have is in terms of the way schools are created, it is usually greeted by the zoning patterns created by a city or county. when you look at redevelopment coming in it clearly shows you can eliminate a community and bring in another one quicker and then your schools would change. is there a way that we can engage local government in this battle for balanced school and balanced community through

looking at decisions? >> action, can i speak to that just briefly? thank you for raising that issue. in fact, that is something we have been looking at within our housing project because we are in fact looking at some of the connections between the patterns of segregation that have been created particularly within not just the recent well known cases, but across the board. we have a housing -- their housing project which is dealing with some of this issue as well as a community development project which also deals with economic equality within the different communities. looking at how we can overlap with our education litigation that is taking place because we see that in fact education --

obviously, they are interconnected. we do see that there is some type of potential for at least trying to work with the government's, local and state entities, in order to challenge some of the patterns by which housing is distributed within. that also means that we have to deal with, on a federal level, some of the distribution of grants. i am looking around to see if i see the people i need to see. i don't. particularly in grant development programs and some of the other funding mechanisms particularly within the section 8 housing. some of those grant funding we have to deal with that because there are loopholes in which the government have been able to get

around ensuring that there is a consideration of the civil rights demographics or the patterns created within the community. the answer to your question is yes, there is an issue there that we are looking at. we would be happy to talk about that with you more. >> this actually goes to both your prior question and the last comment. i think that one of the things exciting about the act is that it takes the conversation away from an analysis of racial composition and toward an analysis of academic achievement. i submit to you that is where we need the book is to remain on academic achievement and what barriers there are and what strategies there are that are being supported, encouraged and

funded by the act in order to advance educational achievement and a narrow the gap. the contention so often is that we don't know how to do it. it's a very hard problem. there's nothing we can do. the point is that we do. we have seen exemplars of closing the gap in short order with limited time. that's the first thing. the second is that while it would be potentially possible -- i am contending that we might be able to bring a piece of litigation having a private right of action would make it clear. it's the difference between an interpretive opportunity and a bright line standard. and so, that's the basis for my joining and the urging that we had a private right of action to the statute. >> thank you. are there questions? we have about two or three minutes for questions. >> not a question, but i just

wanted to thank you for holding this summit and the panelists both on this panel and those that follow for being here. my district is a little different because we are almost all black and hispanic in health

care as the sandoval case showed. thank you again for having this and thank you everybody for being here. >> thank you. yes, ma'am? >> i want to make clear to clarify my perspective that when we are talking about the achievement gap we need to emphasize we are not talking about test scores. it is much more than that. it is about achievement to learn to high thinking skills, to obtain high order thinking skills so they have opportunity to be successful adults. we are talking about individual assistance and support of highly qualified teachers with the support they need. we are not looking at test scores and sank in a private course of action because somebody didn't score high on a standardized assessment. >> our last panel will look at the question of how you know that an achievement gap -- how you know when we have the achievement gap clothes.

yes, sir? >> i am the president of the board of education that is dedicated surrounding the achievement gap for the last 10 years. in a number of school districts around the nation over the course of my career so much has been said that i really don't know where to start. i want to indicate this much. i am not completely -- in my experience in working at a thoroughly integrated school environment where you have an equal distribution of educational instructional resources. the same teachers, the same community resources we still seek an advent of this academic achievement gap. even given equity. and so, i am not sure whether there is a legal remedy, completely to address this achievement gap.

as an educator brought my career i was held accountable. that's fine. we accept accountability in our profession. however, what we have seen to be missing over the course of my career was somebody being accountable for what came in. the national educational association has already told us there exists an achievement gap before the child even gets to kindergarten. what i would like to suggest is that we might as a group of individuals who are concerned about this issue look at what i believe president obama has indicated as a 0 to 5 the initiative. how can we eat effectively get students ready cash and how can we give parents the active support that they need so that by the time the child walks into the schoolhouse door that they know and are able to do what a kindergarten student should be able to do. that really begins the achievement gap because if you have a minority child, a latino or black child that walks into

the door two years already behind, we can engage and embark in a system of never being able to catch up. essentially by the time they graduate from high school they are number 4 years behind their white counterparts. >> this panel spoke specifically to the legal basis. we have others to speak i think to that question specifically. >> can we legislate parental behavior? >> we can provide services to parents and if we are not providing services to parents which then creates or doesn't give us the opportunity to a eliminate the achievement gap, that is something we need to look into. obviously the achievement gap there is a lot to. we will hear from subsequent panels. one of the things that has been important in the no child left

behind is what we call this aggregated data. if you have a school full of people and everybody is learning on average, but you have this aggregated data and notice they are not teaching the minority or low-income students the theory behind no child left behind is we are not going to leave those children behind. so long as we have this data you don't camouflaged what is going on. there are teaching techniques and methodologies that will teach all students and some other methodologies that will in fact predictably leave certain people behind. we want to make sure we are not creating an achievement gap even though the technical tangible factors may equal as they were in brown. >> can i mention something to that? thank you for mentioning this pyrrhic there is something i did not indicate.

i agree there are 9 legal remedies to a least trying to address this. one of the things that we have in the past is a parental empowerment program which essentially goes into various school districts in order to empower the parents to provide them with the information that is necessary to ensure that they are on top of the child's education. it's not going to the courts, but at least it's providing the necessary education. i can't talk with you more about that afterwards. that is something we are engaging in as attorneys, but because we know how things eventually are going to play out with in the courts, we are trying to get to them before had. that goes to some of the issue you are talking about. >> another brief question? i want to thaa8= g,= y8k@= = =

we will come back to order. the second panel will address the following questions. what is the current status of educational achievement by socioeconomic, racial and ethnic status? what are the short and long-term advantages and looked upon low-income and minority students who are victims of the achievement gap? we have as our panelists john payton who is the naacp defense and education fund president and director. he was supposed to be with us today, however, his plane was canceled from new york due to

the fog. he has called on is senior counsel for the naacp defense and education fund, jeffrey robinson, who is with us today. prior to joining, robinson was a founding partner of bachus, robinson and louis law firm. his practice involved civil litigation and civil rights matters, white collar criminal defense and public policy advocacy for the first term of the clinton administration. he served as deputy attorney general in office of legislative affairs. we are pleased to have him here today. david goldberg, senior counsel and senior policy analyst for the leadership conference on civil rights. he manages the education fund k through 12 education reform program. hilary shelton, is joining us as

we speak. serves as the director of the naacp's washington bureau and senior vice president for advocacy and policy. he is responsible for advocating the federal and public policy issue agenda for the oldest, largest and most widely recognized civil rights association in united states. marian wright edelman is expected to join us soon. she is the founder and president of the children's defense fund and she will be with us shortly. breslin bali is the assistant secretary for civil rights at the u.s. department of education. she was nominated by president obama on march 18th, 2009, and confirmed by the senate on may 1st, 2009 as assistant secretary. she is secretary duncan's primary adviser on civil rights and is responsible for enforcing civil rights laws as they pertain to education.

prior to confirmation chu was vice president of the education trust in washington, d.c. she is a former teacher and a lawyer and taught at the university of southern california law center and the university of california at davis. we will begin first on the panel will be hilary shelton, the director of the naacp's washington bureau. >> thank you very much for pulling this together. i am hilary shelton director of naacp washington bureau. this is the oldest and largest grassroots based civil rights organization celebrating 100 years of service and addressing many of the issues of inequity that we will discuss here today. certainly as we talk about the last century there is still much more that needs to be done before we truthfully say all americans regardless of race, ethnicity, family income or where they live have access to

high-quality education. despite the equal protection clause of the u.s. constitution, the 1954 brown versus board of education decision, we talk about improving our schools. have a dramatic disparity in public education continues to plague our nation. the implications of the persistent achievement gap are detrimental to not only individual students but to families and communities and our entire nation. compared to whites, significant gaps for african american and spanish students are evident in virtually every measure of achievement for national assessment math and reading test scores, high school completion rates, college enrollment in college completion rates. an addition there is a wide variability across states in educational investment and outcomes. while the integrity of some measurements of achievement gap such as standard i tests is questionable they do provide us without our children are staring in our current public-school system. according to the national

assessment of educational progress in both math and reading african-american and hispanic children consistently score an average of almost 25 points lower than caucasian children on standardized test push at ages 9, 13 and 17. i school completion rates clearly demonstrate the existence of an achievement gap not only among racial minorities in our nation but also by gender perk almost 1-third of all high school students in united states fail to graduate with their peers. about 1.2 million every year. nationwide about 72% of girls but only 65% of boys and a graduate in class currently earn diplomas. a gender gap is far more pronounced among racial and ethnic minorities. specifically an average of 59% of african-american girls and 48% of african-american boys earn a high school diploma. among hispanics the graduation rate is among 56% for girls and 49% for boys. the impact of this phenomenon on

our community is nothing short of catastrophic. as it perpetuates the size of poverty that we all fight so hard to try to end. high school dropouts are almost twice as likely as their counterparts with high school diplomas to be unemployed and unemployment is a chronic problem as well. high school dropouts to find employment they are much more likely to work at on skilled jobs that offer little opportunity for a port mobility, promotion or stability. the median earnings of high school dropouts remains between $20,000 and $30,000 throughout their lives with little increase as they get older. we talk about the challenges of one generation providing for another generation because we are locked into this income gap. the fact that dropouts are concentrated in african-american communities means that this price is amplified in our communities. three quarters of prison inmates are dropouts as are 60% of

federal inmates. of all african-american dropouts in the early 3052% have been in prison at some point in their lives. for the more statistics show that high school dropouts are more likely to be on public assistance programs such as welfare and students to complete high school diplomas. research shows that each struck out over his lifetime costs the nation about $260,000. other indicators of the achievement keep is the college in rome. while the percentage of american college students who are minorities has been increasing we are still woefully underrepresented. while 33% of all african americans aged 18 to 24 enrolled in college in 2007 that number can be compared to 43% of caucasian americans. the bottom line is that an achievement gap exists and we can and must do much better for our children and for our society. as such for starters the naacp

supports several legislative initiative aimed at closing the gap. these include h.r. 1569 s 618 the every student counts act which will bring meaningful accountability to america's high )",

activities focus on closing the achievement gap. h.r. 2451 is a helpful in addressing this concern. the students bill of rights would require it to provide equitable education opportunities for students in state and public schools specifically this legislation would hold states accountable for providing students with access to fundamental educational opportunity. finally, i want to make sure that every child has an opportunity to fully participate. we recognize disparity in our schools and the challenges are far beyond what we can do politically and what we can do public policy wise. there are some fences that have to be based on our ability to capture and move forward on changes in behavior that are helpful to promulgate these changes. one of the issues the naacp works are on is to try to make the issue of addressing families and students concerns are around investment and getting the greatest equal to that of

athletic. we have the axle program that moves in that direction. if we can get more parents to come out and be more helpful in a broad approach to these problems and bring an interest an emphasis on the issues of success in the classroom as we do on the basketball court or football field. we are convinced that with these resources, a new attitude and new approach we can make changes needed in our society. and closing the achievement gap. thank you very much. >> thank you. jeffrey robinson? >> thank you congressman scott. there is an achievement gap. everybody here knows it. you have heard the statistics. i will throw a couple more at you. 48% of african-american students and only 17% of white students scored below basic on the national assessment progress. the test gap worsened as children grow older. whenever our preparation

failures are, the longer our children are in school be further behind they get. that is a school problem. this achievement gap is defined it nearly as test scores and other things. it is really only a part of the fundamental failure of our schools to educate our children. they don't achieve. they don't graduate. only 55% of african-american students graduate from high school on time with a regular diploma compared to 78% of white students. our students are nearly three times likely to be suspended, 3.5 times likely to be expelled and this racial disparity puts them on a pipeline straight to prison. our schools are not educating our children and we all know if we don't educate our children the can't survive in this world. today i am going to focus on just a small part of this fundamental failure.

i am going to talk a lot today about the failure of our schools to educate minority students who are in interior, racially isolated, high poverty schools. there are way too many of our children who are in those schools and we have not done the things necessary to educate them. 50 plus years after brown -- and we have talked a lot about brown today -- but 50 plus years after it, our public schools are more racially segregated than at any time in the past numb for decades. nearly 40% of african american students attend schools where 90% or more of the student body is non-white. then candidate, now president obama, got it right when he said segregated schools were and are inferior schools. let's be clear. schools are not inferior because they are majority and minority. we can all point to excellent examples of schools where there

are a majority african-american, a majority latino, but where they fulfill their mission to educate our children. unfortunately, while schools are not inferior because african american students are there too many african-american students are in inferior schools. that is the problem we have to address. it's not black children being the bad schools. it's that we keep putting black children into bad schools. if we are not cognizant of that, if we don't admit it and knowledge it and make our public policy solutions address that specific point, we will never succeed. now, why are the schools inferior schools? well, they are overwhelmingly high poverty schools. war than 60% of african-american students attend schools where a majority of students are low income. only 18% of white students attend such schools. they are more likely to be housed in high poverty

neighborhoods with high crime rate, limited access to community resources and learning and development. it's also very difficult for predominantly minority, high poverty schools to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. we have all heard high-quality be effective teachers are the key to a good education. but high minority, high poverty schools can't get and keep effective teachers. public schools in california with over 90% minority enrollment are six times as likely as majority white schools to have high teacher turnover. nationwide, in high schools for at least 75% of the students are low-income, there are three times as many uncertified and out of field english and science teachers. three times as many teachers who don't have the certification for the training to be teaching those critical subjects that they are being asked to teach.

the data suggest that this doesn't just isn't a problem in the schools but there's a racial bias element that we have to end knowledge. it is much more difficult for schools even when you account for income factors, it's much more difficult for high minority schools to keep and retain quality teachers. there's a study that suggests it require a 25% to 33% salary boost to get the same effective teachers in the minority -- high minority schools as are in other schools. there's an element there we have to acknowledge that is not just about the faculty of the poor schools, but there is race playing a role and we have to be aware of that. we have to deal with it. most of the majority of schools

don't have the advance placement and other classes that are necessary. critically, they often lack a connection to the community that enables them to get the kind of resources they need to address these. it's other people's kids -- schools and so our larger communities don't care about them. and we have to address that and we have to be aware of that. my time is coming to an end. there is much too much i can say about what the problems are and where these gaps are. i want to talk just a little bit on the next panel and talk about some of the things that we need to do. we heard early bert supreme court and parents involved in other cases making it more difficult to deal with the racial isolation. but there is still remedies out there. there are things that can be done. and there are five of the supreme court justices at the time recognize that addressing

the association with racial isolation is a compelling interest. there is still room to go there. federal educational policy, there are things we can be doing. congress should are more aggressive in targeting funding to improve the inferior racially isolated high poverty schools. federal legislation should also provide resources to encourage integrated schools. charter schools which have much to offer but they can also contribute to racial and economic segregation and, therefore, it's crucial that the growing charter school movement not be exempt from obligations to provide racial and economic integration. i join with many of the other colleagues that i think most of the lawyers who have been here to say addressing the lack of a private right of action in schools is a critical factor. the government can be pushed to do lots of things.

we hopefully have a government that will be pushed to do lots of things today. but it can't do everything. and without the power as we have seen in employment and other places where there are private rights of action, that private right, parents who care about their children being able to go out and address the disparities are critical. finally, we have to recognize that schools are parts of communities. we have to deal with the issues in our communities, housing, employment, criminal justice system, a range of issues. but we can't let the fact that we have to deal with those issues keep us from dealing with schools because they're on the table now. that's where our children are. and we have a moral obligation to do something about it. thank you, congressman. >> thank you. >> david goldberg?

>> thank you. you are always a champion of a wide array of issues. pleasure and the predicament of being on a panel where hilary and jeff already told you most of what i know. so rather than kind of abuse with you more of them, i'll limit myself to systemic issues. and put it in the context of health care reform since that's what everybody's paying attention to right now. just a couple of statistics. if you look at health care, for example, prenatal afghanistahea. african-americans are likely to get very little or late pre-natal care. that gets worse in cities in washington, d.c. the disparity is about 3.5%.

excuse me, three and a half times. that leads directly to low birth weight babies and, obviously, you know, all the research shows that lack of access to health care going back to prenatal care means worse childhood health. if you have worse health, you're not going to be in school. you're not going to do as well in school. and that leads to the statistics that hilary and jeff were just giving you. so the question is, you know -- and thn you get sort of the next step is if you're not graduating, you're not going o get a good job with good health care benefits. the cycle is going to begin again. when you take that to a whole community, you get the poverty that jeff was just talking about. so that is not an excuse for failing schools. cycles can be broken. and we see it in every community and every city that has a failing system of schools, you

see some exceptional schools where students really are excelling. so the question is what can the federal government do? what can it do in health care? what can it do in all areas? so if the health care system is failing and it's failing children, then there ought to be health care in schools and health clinics in schools. and when we see things like vision screening in schools, you know, it's been done in massachusetts, and you find that low-income kids, minority kids are less likely to have vision care. they can't see. if you can't read the blackboard, you can't perform in school. you can't learn. we see children growing up hungary. we n hungry. we need nutritious food that isn't loaded with sugar and empty calories which, again, research shows, you know, if kids are having, you know if, kids have bad nutrition, you know and the sugar levels go up and down, they don't perform in

schools. and it's absolutely clear research has shown this. children do not have the social and academic supports that exist in more affluent communities. we need out of school time programs. we need after school and summer programs. and, again, will tl are examples everywhere of where it's working you know here in d.c. we have the higher achievement program which has just exceptional track record of getting middle school kids through not just through middle school but getting them through high school and into college. essentially 100% of them when they get rigorous after school and summer programs that eliminate sort of the regression that happens during the summer. you get -- you get performance that goes through to college graduation. no child left behind is a crucial starting point. we need to desegregate the data

people are talking about. we need it in every civil rights area. it's the only way. it didn't solve the problems. we need the sea next time to do more to provide more solutions to provide not just more financial solutions that we just heard about but human capital that will work as well.@@@@@@@ you can see, you know, there are markers as early as sixth grade if kids fail a math class.

if they fail an english class if, they're not attending school, they're not going to graduate from high school. the rate spikes. you get as low as 20% graduation rates for minority kids who have failed a math and english class. so i'll conclude by going back to systemic issues. you know, the federal government can push states to equalize financial resources, to equalize human capital. they're supposed to do it under the law now. they're not doing it. there are way that's some of those loopholes can be changed. federal government can do it and, again, has to do it because nobody else will. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. my pleasure to be here today. with organizations and leaders that really been pioneers in the civil rights movement, you all

have led with grit and real grace. i know we've seen challenging times in the past. but i think now we are in an opportunity like we've had never before where we have the tools at our disposal. we have the civic and public will clearly we have the problems articulated. it is hugely important, congressman scott, that you're conducting these meetings. i thank you for being here, congresswoman christianson. we look forward to working together. so you've heard a lot about the data today. we talked about the size of the achievement gap when it comes to performance on reading and math. it exists throughout every level of the system. we've talked a lot about the graduation rate gaps. we talked a little bit about discipline policies.

taken together, the problem is stark. but what gives rise to the achievement gap is not the socioeconomic status of someone's parents and it's not their color of their skin. it's the opportunity gaps that in our public education system we provide students that need the most with less of everything that research says makes a difference. this department of education is committed to doing something serious about that. as we think about brown and its legacy certainly is here in this room, the pervasive patterns of inequality of opportunity were really at the heart of the original violation in brown. certainly it was separate. but it was unequal. and we now have some unprecedent tools to do something about it. that's not to say, john, that we're not touching segregation. right? i get it. you do, too.

but there are tools that we have at our disposal now like the old desegregation orders that we have resurged. we believe that in those communities that are still with undischarged obligations of desegregation agreement if, those students have the force of law behind them and that they are entitled to as much as they were if it was a court ordered mandate. there was a white flight charter school set to open in a district that was about 45% white. the district had about 35% african-american students. the school had few of them. under the auspices of this old

desegregation order written in 1971, the office for civil rights was able to go in, work with local officials and charter school community organizers and establish a resolution agreement that may it be a desegregated school. in the last two months alone, we have seen some amazing things happening in that area that the president referred to as the corridor of shame during the campaign. my friend david just shoved me a note that says jeff. i know your name is jeff. i'm sorry. i'm a little distracted there, david. i appreciate it. so we have some tools. we have the 441-bs. we're moving them. we're looking at race guidance. we are reviewing picks and rudder and grass. i, too, can count to five. i see big hope in kennedy's

opinion. but it is not the law of the land anymore that can you use race as a sole factor when determining student and faculty assignments. you can use race with much more authority under the auspices of those 441-bs. we talked a lot today about private right of action. and you all have heard some really compelling stories about the need for private right of action, what happened in light of gone zag zzaga versus doe. the federal angencies enforcement over the regulations became the sole responsibility for -- to the federal agency, right? so the only way the zpard impact under title six can be tested, proved, measured is through the federal government now. what happens in the future? we don't know. but i'm here to tell that you this administration and we in the office for civil rights take

this responsibility as a sacred trust. i'm sorry, congressman. that we are looking into all of the things that we know matter most, those things that are constitute benefits and services under title six. where even seemingly neutral policies and practices combine together to create a discriminatory impact. we will study. we will expeditiously resolve complaints. we will launch appropriate compliance reviews. we will use our technical assistance function. we will use our outreach function so that recipients know their responsibilities so that parents know their rights. and so that everyone knows their obligations. we recently received a complaint that looked at all of these factors, everything from zpard

d dp dispaired policies to ineffective teaching. the kind of theories and analysis that we are incorporate in studying those complaints feels novel to lots of folks. but i can't tell you enough the kind of sense of urgency that we feel that, this administration feels, the responsibility that we know we have to have to use the civil rights laws to vigorously enforce and protect students from discrimination whether intentional or otherwise. this is about data collection. congressman scott has been very helpful in the civil rights data collection where we're now getting data about the discipline. we're getting data about referrals to law enforcement. we're getting data about teachers. we're getting data about access to college preparatory curriculum. we need to understand what happens to students as they journey from prekinder gart tone college and beyond and the civil rights data collection is a very important place to start. it's also about an unprecedented

amount of money by this president and this bipartisan congress. i'm sure you've heard about the race to the top fund, $5 billion, $4.35 billion. senator round hugely important areas of human reform, capital, data systems, struggling schools, those schools in the bottom of the country and moving towards real career and college ready standards and assessments. it's also about $210 million that we're proposing for what we call promise neighborhoods. those communities if we can have 20 of them around the country that build off the great work from the harlem children's zone so that we can use wraparound services, get at the health issues, use schools as the center of community as we work to reform what happens to students as they journey again

from birth all the way through career. it's no longer history onics to say that at chiefment gap the a a health issue. there is data that shows that college graduates will live five years longer than their noncollege graduate piers. that children of families without a high school education are in far worse health than children from families in the middle class. we know this is economic and economic imperative in this global and interconnected global marketplace. we're talking about the new mckenzie report that shows anywhere from 312 to over $515 billion we would have more in gdp if we were to close the achievement gap. this is a demographic imperative by 2023, over half of young people in this country will be minority.

and certainly for everyone in this room, i know, it's a moral imperative. the least of which is disparity impact at our disposal to push and move this agenda. the truth is we cannot do it alone at the department of education. we need the congress. more than that, we need a social movement. i sit on this perch at a time when both the president and secretary of education have said this is the most important civil rights issue of our time. yet, we look around and it doesn't look like one. so that i hope together we will continue to make the movement, push for the social change that this country has always risen to the challenge to meet. and continue to work with the pioneers to take it to the next level. mary? >> thank you very much. and our final panelist for this

panel is mary edelman. you don't need much of an introduction. she is the founder and president of the children's defense fund and is the -- which is the nation's strongest voice for children and families over the years. mary, thank you very much for honoring us with your presence. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having us. thank you for your leadership. you're the only person in the world who got me over here today. but thank you. i mean when you call, i come. and i just appreciate your leadership. you probably already heard all the facts you need to hear. my staff did a quick summary of the data. we know the problem in many ways. we'll submit that for the record. everybody here knows it. i'm sorry i missed everybody. i want to just make three or four very basic points. i used to be a civil rights lawyer. and the children's defense fund is an outgrowth of that civil rights experience in mississippi with the naacp legal defense fund. and it was pretty clear and n.

1966, '67, '68 that when i won a deseg indication g desegregation case and the next day my plaintiffs didn't have anything to eat because they were moving over from commodities to food stam nz, didn't have any health care. you couldn't say i won my case. you had to deal with the substantive rights. people have to have a job. they have to have food. they have to have a place to live. they have to have health care. they have to have a place to leave children when they go to work. so that was the origin of the children's defense fund in mississippi to move to that next bridge of making the civil and political rights real, by putting the food and the jobs and the housing and the childcare and the after school care and the quality of what they get in schools in place. so that is the context. and so i want to make two or three very basic points. all of which you know and are working for, mr. chair, is there needs to be and russell has already made the basic point that, you know, there is an

opportunity in the achievement gap. you know that. we know so much of what happens is -- stems from -- it's devastating for children. we don't have a level playing field. our job is to get that level playing field which is the core of what america says it wants to be and it's central to your work and our work to eliminate what i believe is an american apartheid. we need to look at our legislative context as a way of providing a continuum of care for every child from before birth until they can make it through to successful transition to adulthood. people do not come in pieces. they come in families and families need to be able to deal with their children's needs in a wholistic way. so looking at the whole child and trying to do in policy what we do in parenting for those of us that try to be good parents, this is what we should try to put as the norm for those children whose parents cannot afford it or who have not been tout to do what their children

need. and so the kind of legislative priorities that you're paying attention to, you've been the leader on childcare and child health care of this year, prenatal care, trying to get accessible health care for every child before birth snt low birth weight babies, they never, ever get on the track to success or get a chance to go on to college. they're being tracked to deadened lives and prison before birth. question change that this year. i thank you for your leadership

and administration and every member of congress needs to say whatever we do in health reform we're going to make sure the children don't go backwards at the moment. we're struggling to keep millions of children from being worse than better off. a health care system for every child and every pregnant mother. we're the only wealthy industrialized nation that doesn't provide. that secondly, making sure they all had an early childhood education. i started this with home visiting while you're in the womb and make sure do you home visiting for the at risk mothers and babies and keep them out of foster care. keep them out of the child welfare system. let's fund the home visiting programs. keep that money in the budget. and then make sure every child gets a quality early childhood education from early head start to childcare to universal pre-k to universal k, kindergarten. and, again, high quality available to all so that they can get ready for school. i know this administration really is going to try to do.

that and then you have to make sure you have every school ready for every child. there are high expectations and people that don't expect every child to learn. we're going to look at the re-authorization next year. i hope it will be a newly named bill. whatever you are going to call it, esa but no longer no child he left behind. making sure that we're building an educational accountability with adequate funding. and making sure that supports are there and we're rewarding success rather than failure. i just hope that the opportunity to lead and with the new bills coming up this is a chance to revolutionize our approach to education. and we're going to close out education and opportunity gap in our schools. there is a silly argument that whether it's schools ought to do their job for children or the community and poverty all and all this. the children's school lesson is 20% of their day. as we try to make sure that every school does its job with

high expectations and accountable educators that we also make sure the children are safe after school, in the summer, on saturdays. that we don't have learning laws and again the administration has got it. you have to deal with who the whole child. we need to fund before and after school programs and in the summer. is that my red light already? i'm not so short as i thought i would be. we have to deal with child poverty and jobs. poverty really still drives an awful lot as does race. but, again, it's the solution is carrying adults and every institution that relates to children. and for too many children, too many abults, children are beside the point. and we adults need to get out of our s our silohs and we need a new paradigm. we need a paradigm of prevention and early intervention rather than -- forget about the

business of getting that through the congress. i can't thank you enough for your leadership. we have to change the fiscal incentives. i would just like to mention a few of the things coming up quickly in the congress legislatively which are not the civil rights things that i'm sure the experts talked about. but what a chance we've got. you have the juvenile justice and prevention act. i hope we keep children separate from adults. that's a thing we've been fighting. 35 years ago we did children and adult jails. you have to fight these things every few years. you have to make sure you deal with minority confinement. you just have to stop the feeder system. we should all be looking at that carefully. you have the fostering in success education act coming up. you have the stop abuse and residential program for teens act of 2009. and i just, you know, that's fantastic. and you have the student aid and responsibility act which

includes a billion dollars in early morning challenge money which it will be so important to have. and you've got family tax relief act. and so we all need to get it all together and monitoring these proposals as well as esea and the childcare development block grant, the child nutrition act re-authorizati re-authorization. and we need to be putting that in the context of work and work support that's are high quality. as you've been seeing, you know, the test of welfare reform is what happens when there is economic down turn. i just hope we can pay attention to the substantive things coming up that will effect the lives of millions and millions of our families. see that they are reauthorized. see that they are well funded. see that they are fostering prevention and early intervention and high quality protection for all of our children. and seeing that we're going to have the workforce or the people who are administering the policies and practices were committed to children.

and your bottom line is right. we have to clear children's movement. children are the easiest kids to pick on. we have to provide that movement. it is the movement that follows on to civil rights movement. that's what dr. king was trying to do in his campaign. we need that campaign today and all adults need to provide that voice, the voice is children like you do, mr. chair. i thank you very much for doing this and look forward to working with you on all of these bills, particularly the youth promise act. >> thank you very much. give our panelists a round of applause. i'd like to go right into the next panel but if there are pressing questions for this pabpab panel, we'll take those at this point. >> i taught in new york city and in oakland, california. i'm curious about the reference again and again to excellent examples of schools that work

and, yet, i was appreciative of assistant secretary reference to the harlem children zone. i worked in new york in two different schools. one school that was very successful educating minority students and one school that is now phased out, closed. and the closed school is right in the neck of the woods of children zone and i'm wondering whether there's any efforts that you know about to take these excellent schools and go right in the neighborhoods where they're at. you know, right down the street from harlem children's zone. look up the street to the south bronx and say, hey, here's a school that is really failing. instead of just closing it, maybe we can partner with the success that's going on right here locally. because those kids in wh that school closes, where are they going to go? i'm curious about whether that's been explored. i heard a lot about the promise cities and the efforts around the country. i wonder even within a district

like new york city, are the efforts to take examples and breed them within themselves locally? >> let me start by suggesting that you talk to the gentleman right behind you. richard coleman is with the achievable dream program with newport news who have children come to school i think it was 98% on free introduced lunch. overwhelming minority. and there is no achievement gap at that school. the secretary of education visited about two or three weeks ago and so we're hoping that the secretary will incorporate some of what we're doing in newport news at the achievable dream program in some of the policies that we're going to be adopting. any other -- >> i just want to make the distinction. i think that's why we're having

the discussion. harlem children's zone which i think is fantastic and jeff chairs my board is not a policy. it's a program. and 22 or 23 promise zones is not a job policy or education policy make. that's why this hearing is so important and the issue is how do we incorporate the wonderful best practices all around for all children and policy and bear those in line as we construct the next version of legislation. we should not put so much of a burden, you know, they need jobs. they need a transportation policy. get out where the jobs are. they need the things we're discussing here today. people are over, you know, we grab on to one thing as the solution. but we really need to make sure. 20 new promise neighborhoods which i think is fantastic, does not change the country. it just shows and demonstrates what we all know, churn can learn if they're adults with high expectations and well funded. you expect them to do that.

this hearing is even more important. how do you incorporate that into the policy and all the things are coming up, the opportunity for all schools to build on the variety of wonderful practices going on all over this country. but all children need them. bobby? >> congressman scott, if i could just -- and i'm glad you're going on to the next panel. i will have to leave around quarter after 4:00. i don't want to hold you up. thanks to all the panelists. i did happen to read about the schools in newport news. and they were -- the report cited what was happening. they were very promising. but what i really want to talk about is how it's all coming together and it's not schools over here and health care and this other siloh. we have come to understand in dealing with health care and the cdc in general that we have to look at all of the social determinants of health. and when we look at congressman scott's promise act and we look at our health empowerment zones

and the promise neighborhoods, they're all trying to get to the same thing. we have to do all the community work. we have to help support our families if we're going to really achieve. and lastly, i'm a board member of adolescent health alliance. and health and education is so closely tied together. and we talk about losing our children and that junior high school area i hope that at some point will be able to pay better attention to adolescent health. >> thank you, i agree with you. we have to get them to college. but we have to keep them in college. we don't spend enough time on college retension. but just getting successful delta. >> kimberly, i know you're happy to hear. that we're trying to get trio

programs funded for the purpose of keeping -- getting young people to get into college to actually graduate. they're young rate of those that get in and don't complete has become a challenge. access to college is one. and we're doing okay on that. finishing college is the new challenge. yes, ma'am? [ inaudible question ] >> my question, a lot of the administration's focus in education is looking at closing down schools that have not been good for decades. and the kids talked about this through this easy issue, no big deal like you go in. the school hasn't been teaching kids forever. what's the problem? shut it down. send them somewhere else. i'm wondering if can you speak to this issue, especially within the context of communities that will very invested in their local school. even if that school hasn't been serving them as well. you have multiple generations and people have gone to the school.

they may not have graduated. they know the teachers, they know the principal. they know all grownups in the building. and the data tells thus school is not what's right for these kids. built we ha but we have to consider more than just the data with special kids. >> yes, liz, you bring up a really good point. the struggle is what is the answer. and persistently failing schools that for decades in a lot of places have utterly failed those students need dramatic change. they need transformation. closing the school and reopening it with the same kids or sending kids to another place is but one option. right? there are others that work. we have evidence tied to the previous question. we have evidence about the models that work. when it comes to the community investment in those schools that is something we have to be sympathetic to and respectful

of. we at the department have hired a director of community outreach who is actually in this room to begin to communicate with communities, especially on those that are doing dramatic turn around strategies. we know that this is about bridging those sometimes pretty damaging divides between communities and schools. we also developed a technical -- are developing a technical presentation within the office for civil rights there are real civil rights issues and considerationsment. we know less than 104 complaints, many of which came from school closing in washington around five different schools. we have to have the tough conversation amongst ourselves and as advocates. we recently had a discussion about the school closures in washington. we said what is the civil rights violation? right? is it the sting that comes from

the beginning of dramatic transformation. or is it the fact that these students have languished in schools that woefully prepare them for the demands of le@@@@@r bill that we support very well that gives us some inequities in school funding and school resources. forcing the state to actually make sure they provide an equal education opportunity for all students across the state. some states, new york is one

example, used more openly. in one end of the state they're spending $11,000 a year to educate children and the other end, $4,600 to educate a child. we also know there were mistakes made here even in the nation's capitol as to whether to consolidate more schools. we saw the issues that should be taken into consideration from our perspective were not. and that is which schools are actually worth it and which schools are we actually cutting because we're trying to save money along the way? we're seeing the problems occur in many areas across the country as well. we also have to address issues about the collapse and the interconnectedness of how we pay for schools. only 10% of school expenditures are paid for by the federal government. 90% is paid for by state and locals. what that means is when we're talk bgs hing about how we pay them, the states focus in as well. we have states that make sure it

is the task underbedded to pay for the schools by a grid. that is in the certain areas we decide how much to spend on each child in a polley gridded area based on the property values. we continue the cycle we're in now. it speaks to interconnectedness. we scrap resources to pay for schools. we have to address those real problems. >> i could just make one last comment? i just wish we could get as bron in the building rather than the closing of the building. any system that fails to teach children to kpult, 80% of black and hispanic children are not reading and not writing is not working. that's because adults are not holding ourselves accountable for seeing that children have a chance to succeed. any child that cannot read or write in this globalizing world

is being sentenced to dead end lives. and that's what our adult responsibility is changing. so we've come in and they closed down the building. we slu have been in there raising heck for all these children who are not getting what they are supposed to getment i just hope that community voice can get there. it's not a fight between job security for adults who are building for adults. it's about weather we're educating our children. that's where the community voice really needs to be heard. >> congressman, if i can say one last thing. these are manageable transformations. there are 2,000 high schools in the country that produce 50% of the drop youz. over 75% of the tropouts from african and latino communities. if we can target our energies in those places. and with a laser focus bring the community in collaborative, local, state thors together to produce the change we're talking about. the transformation and scale that we're looking for, the models that work comes to light.

>> one of the problems with no child left behind is the -- after you've taken all the tests, what is the response to the tests? there's no farmer's adage you don't fatten a pig by weighing the pichlgt we've taken the test and the response to school is failing to have let children go to that school who can figure out what the system is, sneak out the back door and go somewhere where they can get an education. or in more drastic sense, close the school. if you have most of the children left behind at the school that didn't figure out how to sneak out the back door and go somewhere else, they're getting the same poor education they were getting to begin with. a lot of schools have fail nertz

back already. there is nowhere to go. what we need to do is provide assistance, whatever it takes, to improve the education of those schools t we're back in order. we're talking about the achievement gap and civil rights leaders talking about some of the challenges from a civil rights perspective. and now we're going to have education experts who will speak to us because we know how to eliminate the achievement gap. as i mentioned, bridget coleman

from achievable dream in my district has shown how can you do that. and one of the things we also know is we spend significant resources as a result of the consequences of our failing to properly educate our children. this hearing on this education issue is being held in the judiciary committee hearing room not only because there are civil rights being involved but also because of the strong correlation between prime and education. and the fact that if we failed to educate people, we end up spending a lot of money, a lot more money on crime than we should. this is the chart of incarceration rate in the world. all countries lock up between 50

to 100 people per 100,000. russia locks up over 600. and unfortunately, the united states is number one in the world at over 700 per 100,000 population. that's just part of the story. the other part of the story is that in the african-american community, we lock up on average 2200, that is the first purple bar per 100,000. and ten states lock up african-americans at the rate of over -- almost 4,000 per 100,000. now those numbers are particularly egregious because pugh researchers told us that any rate over 500 per 100,000 is, in fact, counterproductive. that you're getting into criminal justice value for locking up more people. in fact, you're injecting more social pathology into a community than you're curing. and if you look at -- those were

way over what can be justified by any rational. we also look at the correlation between dropping out and incarceration. this chart shows the difference between 1970 and 2000. in 1970, the purple bars, the high school dropout, green bar is a high school graduate. and this is a chart for african-american males, 26 to 30. you'll notice that in 1970, whether you dropped out or didn't, you could get -- you could probably still get a job if not in the labor force, a handful in jail. but by the year 2000, because we have an information-based high-tech economy, if you want a job, you got to get a high school -- at least a high school diploma. you notice that those who in the first pair in the bottom only 30% of african-american males,

26 to 30, that have dropped out of school can be found on the job a little over a third working. and this study actually shows more in jail than working. the high school dropout is -- puts you on a trajectory towards incarceration. this chart shows the same thing. for males, 26 -- 16 to 24, those with -- it breaks it down, everyone males and black males. those with college degrees are not found in jail. those college students are not in jail. some college not in jail. a few with the high school graduation or high school students are in jail. but the high school dropouts, you'll notice you're off the chart. you're much more likely of

unemployment, education pays. the blue chart shows that those with degrees, the more education you, have the less likely you are to be unemployed. and on the yellow bars, the more education you have, obviously, the more money you're going to make. as they say, the more you learn, the more you earn. one of the problems that any incarceration over 500 per 100,000 is counterproductive, and if we reduced the 2200 incarceration rate, average incarceration rate for african-americans to 500, which is the most that you could possibly have and still have any criminal justice benefit per 100,000, you would have 17 fewer people per 100,000 in jail at a cost of about $30,000 a year, almost $50 million in a

community of 100,000 with an average african-american incarceration rate. now with approximately 30,000 children, divide that by almost $50 million, you're talking about $1,600 per child per year those communities are spending on counterproductive incarceration. and if you actually target it to the one-third of our most vulnerable children, you are up to almost $5,000 per child per year. in ten states, the incarceration rate is 4,000. you would have about 3500 fewer people incarcerated. that community -- those communities are spending per 100,000 about $100 million a year in counterproductive incarceration. and if you divide that about it

30,000 children they may have in the community, that's about 33, $3400 per child per year. and if you targeted that money to the one-third of the children most in need, you could be spending -- you are spending the equivalent of over $10,000 per ad at risk child per year every year in counterproductive incarceration. not only do we save money by educating our young people in the chiriminal justice system, y program that reduces crime, it will also reduce teen pregnancy and also increase wages so that we'll have more taxpayers and we'll have fewer, less to pay in

welfare. i have introduced as mary indicated the youth promise act which will provide funding for communities to come together and develop comprehensive evidence-based plans to address juvenile crime. now obviously improvements in education and including the elimination of the achievement gap would have to be core components of any infective plan. but the plan would have to be comprehensive. including as has already been indicated, prenatal care which can reduce learning disabilities and mental retardation and other problems. make sure you have the early childhood education opportunities. make sure the children can read by the third grade. teachers tell us up to the third grade children learn to read. after the third grade, they read to learn. if they can't read after the third grade, they can't learn after the third grade. and they're on a trajectory to dropping out and all the misery that that entails.

also, the after school program and other programs that get young people on the right track and keep them on the right track. we know that those comprehensive programs work every time they put one together. the crime rate plummets. crime rates, we heard one and talking to someone in spas deana, california. they had a comprehensive program reduce dozens of murders per year down to zero for a couple years. they did the same thing in boston. same thing in my district where the murder rate was significantly reduced. 50%, 70%, 90% reduction in murders as a result of the comprehensive plans. pennsylvan that the 100 plans that they funded at the rate of a total of $60 million, in just a couple of years, that $60 million resulted in over $300 million in cost savings as a result of reducing all of the social pathology that we end up paying for.

so for that -- if the youth promise act would fund prevention programs like that and, obviously, the comprehensive nature of the @ @ @ @ @ @ a nature of the states senator ted kennedy who is the chair of the health education labor and pensions committee and prior to working

on capitol hill, he served as senior educational specialist at the national council of laraza. governor bob wise is president of the alliance for excellent education. he is a former governor of west virginia and a former member of congress. under his leadership the alliance works to ensure all students graduate from high school prepared for college careers and to be contributing members of society. dr. la ruth gray is the government relations and legislative liaison for the national alliance of black school educators and is a scholar and residence at new york university. she is former superintendent of schools for avid union free school district in new york. adelia papa is from the national council of laraza which oversees all educational programs. her work focuses on helping academic institutions understand and respond to the needs of underserved children and their teachers. dr. linda darling hammond is professor of education at

stanford university, where she has launched the stanford center for opportunity policy and education or scope. the school -- and the school redesign network. she also serves on the board of directors on educating black children, research teaching and policy work focuses on issues of school reform, teacher quality and educational equity. in 2006 she, was named one of the nation's ten most influential people affecting education policy over the last decade. and she recently served as the leader of president barack obama's education policy transition team. bron sorn is director of the cambodian association of greater philadelphia. prior to that, she was field coordinator for the southeast asia resource center successful new american project where she conducted community research assessment and provided direct services and worked on strengthening and building coalitions and cross sectors, encouraging community members to take on advocacy initiatives.

dr. carol brunson day is president of the national black child development institute and she is recognized as a leader in the field of early childhood education. lilian sparks serves as the national director of the national indian education association which was founded in 1970 to give american indians, alaskan natives and native hawaiians access to improve in their educational opportunities. in october, president obama nominated her to be commissioner of administration for native americans which is part of the department of health and human services, and she is awaiting senate confirmation. lily eccleson is the vice president of the national education association. she is one of the highest ranking labor leaders in the country and one of the most influential hispanic educators. after teaching for only nine years, she was named utah teacher of the year in 1989, and she used that title as a

platform to speak out against the dismal funding of utah schools. sharon lewis is the senior disability policy adviser for the u.s. house of representatives, education and labor committee under the chairmanship of congressman george miller, which she handles issues involving disability policy. she originally came to washington, d.c., from portland, oregon, to work with senator dodd and the help committee -- help subcommittee on children and families. and she served on president obama's transition team for education. amy wilkins is vice president for governor -- government affairs and communication at the education trust. her expertise and advocacy skills comes from her work in the children's defense fund, the democratic national committee, the peace corps and the white house office of media affairs. and our final panelist will be dan cardinelli, the president of communities and schools incorporated. the nation's largest dropout prevention programuition

operations in 26 states and the district of columbia. and under his legislation, the organization has developed and appraised -- embraced an evidence-based model of integrated student services. and we're going to begin with governor wise. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i just have to say, i spent years trying to get to this seat right here and never made it, so thank you very much, in one afternoon i've been able to get to the seat next to the chair. it is a privilege to be here and once again in a forum that you've called -- you've been a leader on this incredible, incredibly important issue, and i just want to point out in addition to the other pieces of legislation, you reference, you are also the lead sponsor on the every student counts act, which would bring accountability to graduation rates and so that we actually find out how well our students are doing at the end. look, i am -- i feel very

fortunate to be part of this and kind of distinguished panel. so let me just add a few facts to some of those that you've already mentioned. some of them may have been mentioned earlier and also a couple of suggestions. first of all, in terms of the economic gains that could be made by reducing achievement gap, we have to remember that at least 52% of all dropouts are children of color. now when that -- when you realize that that's 1.2 million students total a year, that's somewhere around 600,000 students. at the alliance for excellent education we did an analysis several years ago that showed if we could simply bring the graduation rates for students of color to parody with those of their white counterparts, and, remember, the white graduation rate is not great either. but if we could simply bring it to parody, that would generate another $300 billion a year in salaries into our economy from those new wage earners.

working with state farm, we've just released an analysis of the 50 largest cities, the payrolls that could be gained if we could cut the dropout rate in half in most of these cities. children of color comprise at least half of the student body, if not more. and so that number alone if you simply cut the dropout rate in half in our 50 largest metropolitan areas would be $4.5 billion for each graduating class. so now you make that not class of 2010 and now class of 2011 and so on. if you've heard already today about the so-called drop-out fact reed, these are the 2,000 high schools in -- less than 2,000 high schools in the nation that have graduation rates of less than 60%. think about that. 100 ninth graders will start and four years later, 60 or less will walk across the commencement stage. we -- they are 12% of all high school -- less than 12% of all high schools in the country.

they comprise two-thirds of all dropouts of color. not all -- not the dropouts in those high schools are of color. they comprise two-thirds of all dropouts of color. and so you can see that simply targeting those high schools and the feeder schools to them, and the graduation promise act does this as well as the congressman's legislation, success in the middle act, that simply those two pieces of legislation alone, estimated to cost somewhere between $4 billion to $5 billion a year, would significantly reduce the achievement gap. it's like a surgical precision strike. along those lines, the significance of that is that reducing targeting those schools also meets the administration's goal. president obama's goal, secretary duncan's, of targeting the lowest percentage of schools for turnaround.

and so the graduation promise act and the success in the middle act. the -- i think it also ought to be pointed out, another analysis that the alliance did, and this is old data really. it's about three years old is if we could only reduce the male dropout rate -- male dropout rate by 5%, that would result in $8 billion of cost savings, crime related cost savings. so some more statistics. this is why it's not only a moral imperative but an economic imperative. we strongly recommend the -- we strongly urge the congress to consider and particularly with 2010 coming up, to recognize the -- this concept. and mr. chairman, you just pointed it out in so well in your data. the best economic stimulus package is a diploma. if we can achieve that, we spent $3 billion to stimulate the economy last year on cars for

clunkers. $3 billion if we can turn around and graduate two-thirds of our students of color. what we will do is unleash an economic engine that is far greater than whatever benefits came from that sole initiative. what we will do instead, and these will be productive students that are making a contribution year after year after year. so the graduation promise act, the success in the middle act, your legislation, mr. chairman on the -- besides that, which you've already mentioned on the every student counts act. and then a number of the initiatives that would improve our data systems, target the newest funding for turning around the lowest performing schools and supporting innovation and research in our secondary school systems. relatively low investment, and with incredibly high return. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you governor. dr. gray. >> i would also -- is this on? i would also like to thank you

for allowing me to be part of this panel. this is a large panel, so i'm going to be as quick as i can and go to two or three points. the national alliance of black school educators, we want to answer this question. what type of legislation do we need to pass to shape a country in which all children receive a quality education, et cetera. there's already legislation there. let me go directly to it. we have perhaps two titles that are significant. title 6 and title 1. if there were no title 1, the federal government probably could not unleash all of the rules, recommendations, et cetera, it does because that's the engine that drives all of that. title 1 funding. and it is our view that title 1 funding has not been significantly targeted to the poorest districts with the poorest children in the poorest schools. and for us, that's the answer. are we concerned about all of the other things that have been

talked about? are we concerned about the fact that the federal government has not met its promise on a 40% on idea? are we concerned about the fact that teacher quality, all of those things. but it gets down to, what does it cost, how do we pay for it and where's the money? the money is already there. it just needs to be redirected. the answer really is in poverty. and we don't use that. we talk about low income kids, children of color. but the answer -- the elephant in the room is really poverty, in our judgment. and this cuts across color, by the way. it's appalachia. it's kentucky. it's the highlands across the south where that is predominantly white but that's where we have serious abject rural poverty. we have models for this. we did a nice job somewhere between the passing of the great society and moving on toward the '80s. and it was in the '80s that we ran into comp ra bility

problems. i'll tick off four or five things we think congress can do with title 1 funding and the new reauthorization because there are so many people to talk. let me just go quickly to those. and tell you that the -- we believe the title 1 basic, you know, part "a" monies should be targeted directly as i said earlier to the poorest districts, the poorest schools of the poorest children. and we believe strongly that the strict language should look at the way that we handle both comparablity because it's gone out of the window. the fed is paying no attention to it. the state is paying no attention to it. that's what the first two or three of maybe the first seven or eight or nine years prior to the -- i guess it would be about 1978 -- well it was 1980 when we moved from 75% school wides. the language that in the title 1 of the esea, the so-called

comparablity provision was supposed to promote equality of education, but, indeed, it does not because, as i said earlier, there's been very little attention paid to it. so we would like that looked at. while the federal government distributes its title one based on poverty now, it's the formula that needs addressing. we think that county -- counting by percentage of counties presents problems. we would rather see district level. they collect that data, so they have it. we probably believe that, like a couple of the other titles that while money should go to the states for administration, since it's the state's responsibility, that title 1 dollars should flow directly to districts and that we move away from flowing them directly to the state and then the state's formula kicks in. gordon lou has said something in

the iowa law review. although the ambitious proposals about national standards, school vouchers, growth models for growth will garner headlines, it is not -- it will not necessarily that the esea act of 1965, the original precursorf@@ misused the title 1 funding to answer all types of problems. some of the stimulus money was driven that way. we would like -- we believe that it has to be reanalyzed in this new reauthorization and that it will cause some political

capital because it's not easy to take money away from states. we understand that. or to take money away from school districts. some of us had a fit, what are you talking about? 30,000 and under is probably the average size of school districts in this country. i have stats here, all of that, but i think there are too many people to talk, so that's -- i'll stop. >> thank you very much. miss pompa? >> thank you. thank you. you know, i've been in education a very long time, and i've been in a school. i've been at the state education agency and i've been here in washington. and for all those years, there's been an achievement gap. we see the achievement gap very clearly, and we've become so used to it when we see it in those bar graphs. we see the hard numbers and we just expect when we see an

analysis of any type of assessment to see an achievement gap. but, you know, those of you who visit in schools like i do find it much more dramatic when you visit a school and those bar graphs become real and you see kids and compare what kids are reading in the fifth grade in a low income neighborhood to what kids in an upper income neighborhood are reading. you see the kinds of courses kids in high poverty school are taking and you compare that to the courses your nieces or nephews or your children are taking. then those bar graphs and those numbers really do come alive. so there's no question that there's an achievement gap. there's no question that we need to close it, and there's also no question that we can close it. you know, for centuries, afri n african-americans -- centuries, afric african-americans have endured the achievement gap. for at least a century, hispanic americans have endured the achievement gap. and we're at a point where we have the technology to close it.

we have the knowledge to close it. and the question is, do we have the will to close it? i think the answer is yes. i think we see examples all over the country where ordinary teachers are doing what some would call extraordinary, and that is achieving children -- achieving and closing the gap for children of color. graduating children of color who do as well as any other child in this country. so we can do it. but we need to figure out how we begin to make that system attic. i shouldn't say need to figure it out. we know how to do it. as we prepare for esea reauthorization this time around, we have many lessons we've learned. we have much information about what has worked, how it's worked, and we know how we can expand what is good about esea. you know, one of the things i tell folks is that as a person of color, i feel like every time

i start to figure out the game, someone changes the rules. and i would hope that we don't change the rules for schools or kids this time. the rules are good rules. what we need to figure out is how we implement them fairly and how we implement them in a way where their effect is sustained. and that would mean that we would have valid assessments that would measure how well schools are preparing our children in a robust accountability system. it would mean we have information that parents could understand to play their role in the accountability system. and that we would have teachers with the knowledge and skills that it takes to teach children no matter where they live, no matter what language they speak and no matter how much the parents earn. so those are the things we can do and that we must do. but too many kids are still waiting for this to happen. so just to give you some specifics of what nclr supports, i would point you to a couple of publications that we brought

earlier that are outside for you to look at. one is our position on assessment. another is a good example on where we stand when -- on accountability and on esca in general. it's our analysis of the latest regulations on title 1. i think that tells you a lot. but specifically, i'm going to speak to english language learners because that is among all our other passions, one of our biggest passions. what we've seen over the last five years is a series of attempts to weaken accountability systems for english language learners by saying oh, poor thing you shouldn't put this test in front of them. it's so drawmatic. they can't pass this test. and i would ask those people, do you feel that way when you put a math test in front of a child who speaks english who has never been taught math? tests are -- tests exist to tell us what we as adults need to do. we don't need to turn them into

instruments of torture for children, nor are they intended to be instruments of torture. if we weaken accountability systems for english language learners, we will have opened the door and begun to change the rules all over again. so we support for english language learners keeping accountability requirements and enforcing them. we support providing appropriate assessments for english language learners and funding them to a level that all schools have access to them. and including teachers of english language learners as a priority group in looking at funding. we would also encourage pilot programs for the small but significant number of english language learners who come into our u.s. schools without an appropriate education. so do we support only tests? no in the short period of time, i'm going to try and tell you the other things we think we need. we need course rigor. we need to look at that. we need to look at graduation rates and more and more we need to look at college completion for our kids.

can we do this? we believe the technology is at a point where we can do this. we are moving toward a point in time where we have common standards that hold high, high achievement levels for all kids. we're moving to a point in time where states are improving their data systems such that they can follow their children xroos high schools, across schools, into college and across social systems. and then we also need new models of accountability and we see those popping up all over the country. in closing, i would say we have nowhere to go but up, and i think we have the directions for that. thank you. >> thank you. dr. darliene hammond. >> thank you very much. i am here representing the national council on educating black children. and let me see if this little gadget will work because i have a power point.

maybe yes. maybe no. there we go. our president claude mayberry is here and also available for follow-up, and we have a paper available because i'm going to zip through this very, very quickly and you can see more about our recommendations there. the council was set up by congressman augusta hawkins and was rooted in the work of ron edmonds whose research made it clear we can whenever and wherever we choose successfully teach children about whose schooling is of interest to us. and we start from that starting point. the ncebc works across the country to create community action plans, much like those in the youth promise act, and has identified a set of central issues that i'll return to which include the lack of access to high quality preschool, underresourced schools, poor

quality instruction by underprepared teachers and inadequate education of parents and their involvement in children's schools. it starts from a perspective that educational inequality in the united states requires a systemic response that marginal fragmented programs will not be enough. neither will a focus on test scores alone. that we need a federal policy that will recognize and take a much more systemic approach to building quality and addressing inequality than it has to date. and we're going to really try to step back and look at it from that perspective. the achievement gap is not only between and among children in this country. it's between this country and other countries around the world. this happens -- this represents the achievement on piza international science tests and the socio economic status, the extent to come which is influences that.

those in the bottom left quadrant where the united states lands have achievement that is below the average and inequitable. so we are falling behind other nations in many, many ways. we are, right now, 35th out of the top 40 countries in math on international assessments, 29th in science. we are falling behind in graduation rates. we're in the bottom half of industrialized countries and graduation rates. many of these nations have graduation rates above 90%. we're stuck at 70% and falling. we're also falling behind in college going. we used to be first in the world in college going. we're now 17th and dropping about two slots per year. and that's even, of course, worse for african-american and latino children. only about 38% of young people in the united states go to college and finish with a degree. that's only about 17% for african-american students. only 11% for latino students.

by comparison, most european nations are sending 50% of their kids to college. countries like korea and singapore are at above 60%. going on and finishing college. so what are they doing? that we're not doing? number one, children are well supported. they come to school with housing, health care, early childhood education. number, two they fund schools centrally and equally. they do not see any benefit in spending and underresourcing the schools that high need children attend. they build a very strong educator workforce where all teachers and leaders are well prepared and equally distributed so that everything else they do can have a chance of working because the educators know how to work with the rest of the curriculum and reforms. and, finally, they have a teaching and learning system focused on the kinds of outcomes that we are hoping for here. so we lead the world in poverty

among industrialized nations. we spend less than on the schools that those children attend. the blue bars here are the districts in california serving predominantly white students. the red bars are the district serving predominantly students of color. inequality is later on that the cross state intrastate and interdistrict levels. most of that then leads to the teaching gap that geoff robinson talked about where five times more teachers are unqualified in schools that serve minority students than in other schools. but policy can reduce this achievement gap. so let me just point out that the policies in the 1960s and '70s cut the achievement gap in half and sharply increased educational achievement. had we stayed with the policies that were in place, where we were in 1988, we would have closed the racial achievement gap by the year 2000. in 1981, almost all of those policies were turned around.

and undone. college going rates were once equal. and so we have to look back at those broad policies that actually helped us make substantial progress in the past. we've also have some states that also have made huge investments in systemic investments. i wopt point out new jersey. they've cut the achievement gap in half. the average latino or black student in new jersey outscores the average student in california now, and they are among the top states in the nation in every category of achievement, even though half of the students are students of color. and what they did was what i think shapes an overall approach. they finally gave parody funding to the high minority/low wealth districts and spent as much money on them as the high districts. they used a whole school reform model based on jim comer's school development program which

engages parents and supports child development. they created teacher education focused on urban teaching, and they focused on high quality professional development. we need a set of high leverage federal policies to close the achievement gap in america. and i won't have time to go into all of these, but i just want to paint a broad picture for us because ultimately, as marianne wright edleman said, we just can't deal with individual initiatives that come and go in small programs. we need big policy. we need to be sure there's high quality preschool education available for every child. the returns to that are very, very high in terms of school success. we need requirements for states to make progress on resource equity under esea as well as the federal government. we need to get a high quality teacher and leadership workforce in every single school. you could do that for about $2 billion among the hundreds of billions that are being spent

and solve much of the problem that occurs. and then we need to support good learning environments in the schools that we're worried about that engage parents. that engage parents. i'm not going to kam@@@@@@@ @ opportunity indicators alongside reports of achievement. we need to show whether students have adequately qualified teachers, the curriculum that is needed to address the standards, the materials, books, computers and resources to learn to

standards. and we need to require that when schools are identified as failing, states have to meet opportunity to learn standards for those schools because right now, we show that they are failing and we do not require that the resources are put in place for them to be able to improve. and then we have to look at how students are treated and access curriculum opportunities when we look at schools. teacher quality matters greatly and can account for more than the effects of race in parent education combined. and now we have a federal policy that encourages a race to the bottom in terms of teacher quality. we're encouraging and left over from the bush administration, the proliferation of low course work, alternative certification programs that reduce the training teachers get and reduce the student teaching they are likely to get and the mathematical study here shows that, in fact, students lost achievement between fall and spring when they had teachers with that kind of training.

whereas when they had teachers with greater training, they gained in achievement. and a set prove posals that would strengthen teaching across the country and in high-need communities that are doable for which we have good evidence base. we need to invest in leadership development because you cannot turn around a school without good loaders. we're the only school among industrialed nations that has no major federal policy for investing in the quality of teachers and leaders in our country. and then we need a set of community investments in high-need schools, and i simply want to point out that community school models that have been very successful that offer both high quality instruction and wrap around services are part of that initiative. and we cannot forget the need to involve parents in meaningful ways, including providing time for them to work in and meet with teachers at the school, which employers could be incentivized to do and which teachers can be provided time to

do. i'll leave those with the words of martin luther king. there comes a time when one must take a position that's neither safe, politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it's right. we'll have to remember this if we're going to make any progress on this agenda. >> thank you very much. thank you. that gives us an outline of what we need to do. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, everyone. as you all hear in the discussion throughout the day, key words are equity, accountability, responsibility, lack of resource. all these issues that affect our education system have been the issue of meeting the achievement gap. and i can't emphasize enough about the equity.

whether all students have access to quality education and the support they need to reach the fullest potential, it is about social justice. so it is our responsibility to make sure that we all have the responsibility to make sure our children get the quality of education that they need so that they can become productive and responsible adult. and as we hear throughout the day, the investment on education will pay off. so those are the keyword. one issue that i wanted to bring up today is racism and violence in the school that are really affecting the education system. living in philadelphia, we have lived for the past 22 years when i land in the u.s.

recently last week, there's a huge racial motivated violence in the school district of philadelphia. that create so much controversy that affects so 15 students. the students start to boycott not going to school because the administrator responded slow and is not being receptive or not give the student the voice of what they've been through. and this is not just an incident that's happening last week. but it's an ongoing that is happening throughout any school that the responsibility or accountability of such issues keep coming up. the racism and also the not taking the full responsibility and accountability of the adult and those who really supposed to

protect and secure and provide a quality education of the student. so the issue -- what i wanted to say is that i feel that they fail to protect the student. therefore, they don't feel secure and safe to go back to school and, therefore, they can't get education they need. the place that they are supposed to feel welcome and secure and get the support they need to succeed in their life. so that's one of the reasons that maybe the issue of not achieving the gap. and i agree with ms. pampa about provide equal access to every student, especially the english learn learner. cambodian and other southeast asian among the lowest college

achievement, lowest rate. although asian consider the minority model, but if you look at the subgroup, the southeast asian whose majority are the survivor of the vietnam war who have been affected, southeast asia, most of us came as refugee and survived the genocide for the cambodian population. survived the genocide. we are the majority of the educated people were killed. those who survived who came to the u.s. who have limited education, who have limited -- skill, who live in a poverty area where a lot of already high crime rate and all this issues already manifest already. so for these to really reach their full potential is to get the full support they need. not just in the community but also in the school.

so, again, it's all about equity, responsibility and accountability. and i just want to give -- i heard this already of so many recommendation, but i only wanted to bring up again one more is that to ensure that all these kids have equal access to education -- quality education, is that each school district make effort to acknowledge and address the need of the worst student and parent regardless of their ethnicity, language background, recruit more bilingual staff at different level, not just the staff that work at the low paid and low skill staff just to make diversity, but the real skilled staff who can work with a diverse student. provide ongoing professional training and adequate resources to provide bilingual staff and every staff involved to provide adequate support to student, parent and at the same time,

hold them accountable. provide adequate safety, security to all student and when there is an incident, student and parent are treated equally and ensured they receive proper support and follow-up. and one of the issue that we came across so many years in the school district in philadelphia is that the incident report are not properly filed and/or missing or depending on who is affected by the violence, the report may be under report or not report and some of the victim were just sent home or sent out without really proper report or further investigation. so that's one of the issue. also, to continue to work with different -- across the sector, regardless of emgs system, the government and the community based organization. for us, we wanted to reach out

to different group -- different level. so that we can help our community succeed, not just educationally but socially and also economically so that they can really help themselves become self-sufficient. so that is our goal. again, just to close, if you are thinking about investing in education, it will pay off. it is about prevention, intervention, rather than treatment when it's already -- it's a big issue when it is cheaper to spend on education rather than put people in prison. so that's my last thought and thank you so much. >> thank you very much. our next panel cyst dr. carol brunson day. >> thank you, representative

scott. nice to be here. i appreciate the invitation. dr. darling-hammond mentioned, and essentially described early education for all children as a major factor in working to eliminate the achievement gap. it actually is a way to prevent the dramatic consequences that we see at the end of twelfth grade. in fact, at least half of the black/white achievement gap at exists at the end of 12th grade can be attributed to a gap that already existed at the beginning of the first grade. so when we look -- when we think about early childhood education, it is a preventative measure in terms of children's achievement. and we can create programs with the right kind of policy that encourages high -- investments

in early education and care experiences. and when we do that we can ensure that all children, regardless of economic status, of ability status, of race or ethnicity enter school equally ready to learn. there's a great deal of evidence supporting this and it comes from a variety of domains. hard science has made a contribution to our understanding early brain development. we've heard a lot about that recently. the critical importance of children's very early experiences. economists have also helped us understand the cost benefits of investing early. we know that the estimated return is about 7-1, but we know that there are some long-term studies that show particularly at children living in poverty,

something that dr. gray mentioned. the benefit cost ratios can be as high as 17-1 with most of these benefits accruing to the general public within education but also outside of education and the domains of criminal justice and in the economic and the job market. from educators, we have a great deal as well of evidence. studies have shown one after another that early education has vast benefits. we're beginning to see professional groups -- police officers, business leaders and just recently retired military officers supporting early -- investments in early education. with the military arguing that or supporting a campaign that

promotes early education as a means of supporting our future national security. we know that the greatest returns on these investments come for children from families with low incomes. and, therefore, children who are often the farthest behind in school accrue the greatest benefits from these investments in early education. we have seen systems within states work. all states are really taking a look at their investment in early education but some have taken really some leadership in demonstrating models that promote early education and comprehensive ways. linda mentioned new jersey as a state as one of the states. pennsylvania is one. washington state, as well as kansas. we also applaud the policies of the obama administration which are paying f